P 


-* 


op 


“4 


BRIDGE 
ARCHITECTURE 


CONTAINING TWO-HUNDRED ILLUSTRA: 
TIONS OF THE NOTABLE BRIDGES OF 
THE WORLD, ANCIENT AND MODERN 
WITH DESCRIPTIVE, HISTORICAL AND 
LEGENDARY TEXT 


lew? 
WILBUR J.WATSON 


PUBLISHED BY 
WILLIAM HELBURN INC. 
[Seb ASIeoo lt STREET 


NEW YORK 


COPYRIGHT 1927 BY WILBUR J. WATSON 


Affectionately dedicated 
to 
CADY STALEY, Ph.D., LL.D. 
President Emeritus of Case School of Applied Science 
| Cleveland, Ohio 


I like a bridge— 

It cries, ‘‘“Gome on 

“T’ll take you there from here and 
here from there 

“And save you time and toil.” 


I like a bridge— 

It breathes romance; 

“There’s new adventure on the 
further side 

“And I will help you cross.” 


I like a bridge— 

It makes me think 

That when a worry comes, my 
mind will find 

Somewhere a friendly bridge. 


oo ek 


“Bridges ought to have the self-same 
qualifications we judge necessary in all 
other buildings, which are that they 
should be commodious, beautiful and 


lasting.” res 
—Andrea Palladio, 1518-1580 — 


“In the history of Architecture, those — ie 
bridges are the most attractive which 
are something more than mere passages 
for carriages and pedestrians.” 
—Russell Sturgis 


‘ 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


NAME 


THE EDWIN NATURAL BRIDGE 

PRIMITIVE TIMBER CANTILEVER BRIDGE 

OLD MASONRY ARCH BRIDGE 

OLD MASONRY ARCH BRIDGE 

OLD MASONRY SLAB BRIDGE 

PRIMITIVE TIMBER ARCH BRIDGE 

PRIMITIVE SUSPENSION BRIDGE 

PONTOON BRIDGE ACROSS THE GOLDEN HORN 
CAESAR’S BRIDGE OVER THE RHINE 

PONTE ROTTO. ANCIENT ROMAN BRIDGE 


PONTE SISTO. ANCIENT ROMAN BRIDGE 


PONTE QUATTRO CAPI. ANCIENT ROMAN BRIDGE 


PONTE ST. ANGELO. ANCIENT ROMAN BRIDGE 
PONTE MOLLE. ANCIENT ROMAN BRIDGE 
PONTE DI AUGUSTO. ANCIENT ROMAN BRIDGE 


PONT DU GARD. ROMAN AQUEDUCT BRIDGE 


PONT FLAVIEN. ROMAN MEMORIAL BRIDGE 
TRAJAN’S BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER TAGUS 
TOWER AT CENTER OF ALCAN’TARA BRIDGE 
ROMAN AQUEDUCT BRIDGE. GENERAL VIEW 
ROMAN AQUEDUCT BRIDGE 

ROMAN AQUEDUCT BRIDGE 

BRIDGE OF ST. BENEZET 

VALENTRE BRIDGE 

MEDIEVAL BRIDGE OF BRICK 

OLD LONDON BRIDGE 

PUENTE DE SAN MARTIN. GENERAL VIEW 
PUENTE DE SAN MARTIN. DETAILS 


PUENTE DE SAN MARTIN. DETAILS 


PUENTE DE ALCANTARA. GENERAL VIEW 


LOCATION 
UTAH 


BHUTAN, ASIA 
CHUNG-KING, CHINA 
PU’TO’SHAN, CHINA 
HANCHOU, CHINA 
CASHMERE, ASIA 
SZE-CHUAN, CHINA 


CONSTANTINOPLE 


ROME 
ROME 
ROME 


ROME 


ROME 

RIMINI, ITALY 
NIMES, FRANCE 

ST. CHAMAS, FRANCE 


ALCAN’TARA, SPAIN 


SEGOVIA, SPAIN 
SEGOVIA, SPAIN 
SEGOVIA, SPAIN 
AVIGNON, FRANCE 
CAHORS, FRANCE 
MONTAUBAN, FRANCE 
LONDON, ENGLAND 
TOLEDO, SPAIN 
TOLEDO, SPAIN 
TOLEDO, SPAIN 


TOLEDO, SPAIN 


PLATE 


XVIII 


XIX 


XXII 


XXIII 


XXIV 


XXV 


XXVI 


XXVII 


XXVIII 


PAGE 


99 
22, 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


NAME LOCATION 

PUENTE DE ALCANTARA. DETAILS ~~ | oP “TOLEDO, SPAIN 

- BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER MINHO ORENSE, SPAIN 
ANCIENT BRIDGE ae DOLCEACQUA, ITALY 
BRIDGE OF MARTORELLI oar BARCELONA, SPAIN 
PONTE VECCHIO FLORENCE, ITALY. 
KARLSBRUCKE. GENERAL VIEW PRAGUE 
KARLSBRUCKE. TOWER PRAGUE 
BRIDGE OVER THE TICINO PAVIA, ITALY 
PONTE DELLA PIETRA. GENERAL VIEW VERONA, ITALY 
PONTE DELLA PIETRA. DETAIL VERONA, ITALY 
PUENTE DE PIEDRA ZARAGOSSA, SPAIN 
CASTELVECCHIO VERONA, ITALY 
THE TWA BRIGS O’AYR AYR, SCOTLAND 
THE AULD BRIG 0’DOON SCOTLAND 
OLD MASONRY BRIDGE . _ BIDDEFORD, ENGLAND 
PONTE DI RIALTO VENICE, ITALY 
PONTE DI SOSPIRE . VENICE, ITALY 
PONTE DELLA TRINITA FLORENCE, ITALY 
PARK BRIDGE CHATSWORTH, ENGLAND 
PONT NEUF PARIS 

PONT ROYAL PARIS 
PONT ROYAL PARIS 
PONT ST. LOUIS PARIS 
PANORAMA OF BRIDGES PARIS 
PONTE DI MEZZO - PISA, ITALY 


THE OLD BRIDGE 


PONT DE LA CONCORDE PARIS 
WATERLOO BRIDGE LONDON 
NEW LONDON BRIDGE AS BUILT LONDON 
“THE OLD BRIDGE” HEIDELBERG 
PONT Y PRIDD WALES | 
BRITANNIA BRIDGE WALES 


PONT DE LA ARCHEVECHE 


TOULOUSE, FRANCE 


PARIS 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


NAME 


PONT AU CHANGE 


PONT D’ALMA 


PONT ALEXANDRE III 


PONT D’AUTEUIL 

SEJOURNE’ BRIDGE OVER THE PEDROUSE 
BRIDGE OVER THE PETRUSSE 

PONTE SOLFERINO 

COULOUVRENIER BRIDGE 

OLD BRIDGE OVER THE AGOUT 

NEW BRIDGE OVER THE AGOUT 
HANNIBAL BRIDGE OVER THE VULTURNE 
THE EDWARD THE SEVENTH BRIDGE 
PONT ANTOINETTE 

RAILROAD MASONRY ARCH 

RAILWAY BRIDGE OVER THE LOIRE 
RAILWAY BRIDGE OVER THE MOSELLE 
THE FREDERIG AUGUST BRIDGE 

BRIDGE OVER THE TAJO 

“HIGH BRIDGE” 


CABIN JOHN ARCH 


MEMORIAL BRIDGE OVER THE CONNECTICUT RIVER 


MASONRY BRIDGE OVER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 


STONE MASONRY BRIDGES 


STONE MASONRY BRIDGES 


MASONRY BRIDGE IN ROCKEFELLER PARKWAY 


MASONRY BRIDGE IN ROCKEFELLER PARKWAY 


VITTORIO EMANUELE II BRIDGE 


COVERED TIMBER BRIDGE OVER MUSKINGUM RIVER 


SOUTHWARK BRIDGE 
SOUTHWARK BRIDGE 
WESTMINSTER BRIDGE 
EL KANTARA 


EADS BRIDGE OVER THE MISSISSIPPI 


LOCATION 
PARIS 
PARIS 
PARIS 
PARIS 
FRANCE 
LUXEMBURG 
PISA 
GENEVA 
LAVAUR, FRANCE 
LAVAUR, FRANCE 
ITALY 
KEW, ENGLAND 
TARN, FRANCE 
VORAILBERG, AUSTRIA 
ORLEANS, FRANCE 
LORRAINE 
PLAUEN 
RONDA, SPAIN 
NEW YORK 


WASHINGTON, D. C. 


HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 


HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 


ELYRIA, OHIO 
BEREA, OHIO 
CLEVELAND, OHIO 
CLEVELAND, OHIO 
ROME, ITALY 
ZANESVILLE, OHIO 
LONDON, ENGLAND 
LONDON, ENGLAND 


LONDON, ENGLAND 


CONSTANTINE, ALGERIA 


ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 


PLATE 


LXII 


LXIII 


LXIV 


LXV 


LXVI 


LXVII 


LXVIII 


LXIX 


LXX 


LXXI 


LXXII 


LXXIII 


LXXIV 


LXXV 


LXXVI 


LXXVII 


LXXVIII 


LXXIX 


LXXX 


LXXXI 


LXXXII 


LXXXIII 


LXXXIV 


LXXXV 


LXXXVI 


LXXXVII 


LXXXVIII 


LXXXIX 


XC 


XCI 


Xcil 


XCIII 


XCIV 


PAGE 


118 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


NAME 

WHIPPLE TRUSS BRIDGE 

WASHINGTON BRIDGE 

GARABIT VIADUCT 

STEEL ARCH BRIDGE OVER THE RHINE 
STEEL ARCH BRIDGE OVER THE AAR 
STEEL ARCH BRIDGE OVER THE RHINE 
STEEL ARCH BRIDGE OVER THE RHINE 
STEEL ARCH BRIDGE OVER THE NIAGARA RIVER 
HELL GATE BRIDGE 

LONGFELLOW BRIDGE 

LONGFELLOW BRIDGE, DETAILS 
RAILWAY BRIDGE OVER STREET 

STEEL ARCH BRIDGE 

STEEL ARCH BRIDGE 

STEEL ARCH BRIDGE 

FORTIETH STREET BRIDGE 

SIXTEENTH STREET BRIDGE 

OLD SUSPENSION BRIDGE 

TELFORD’S BRIDGE 

KETTENBRUCKE 

ELIZABETH BRIDGE 

ROEBLING’S BROOKLYN BRIDGE 

THE WILLIAMSBURG BRIDGE 

THE MANHATTAN BRIDGE 

DELAWARE RIVER BRIDGE 

DELAWARE RIVER BRIDGE, DETAIL 
RECENT SUSPENSION BRIDGE 

SEVENTH AVENUE BRIDGE 
QUEENSBORO BRIDGE 

FORTH BRIDGE 

ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BRIDGE 
CANTILEVER BRIDGE OVER THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER 


BRIDGE OVER STREET 


LOCATION 
UNITED STATES 
NEW YORK, N. Y. 
FRANCE 
BONN, GERMANY 
BERNE, SWITZERLAND 
RUDESHEIM, GERMANY 
COLOGNE, GERMANY 
NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 
NEW YORK, N. Y. 
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 


CLEVELAND, OHIO 


CLEVELAND, OHIO 

CHAGRIN FALLS, OHTO 
WORMS, GERMANY 
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 
NEWBURYPORT, MASS. 
MENAI STRAIT, WALES 
BUDAPEST, HUNGARY 
BUDAPEST, HUNGARY 

NEW YORK, N. Y. 

NEW YORK, N. Y. 


NEW YORK, N. Y. 


PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 


PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 


COLOGNE, GERMANY 
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 
NEW YORK, N. Y. 

SCOTLAND 

QUEBEC, CANADA 

THEBES, ILLINOIS 


LONDON 


PLATE 


XCV 


XCVI 


XCVII 


XCVIII 


XCIX 


C 


cl 


cVI 


CVI-B 


cVII 


CVITI 


CIX 


CXVI 


CXVII 


CXVII 


CXIX 


CXX 


CcXXI 


IXXIT 


CXXIII 


CXXIV 


CXXV 


PAGE 


155 


156 


177 


179 


181 


182 


183 


184 


185 


186 


189 


190 


191 


192 


193 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


NAME 
RAILWAY BRIDGE OVER THE HUDSON RIVER 
BRIDGE. B. & O. R. R. 
BRIDGE OVER THE RHINE 
STEEL RAILWAY BRIDGE OVER THE RHINE 
BRIDGE OVER THE RHINE 
RAILWAY BRIDGE OVER EAST 30TH STREET 
CONNECTICUT AVENUE BRIDGE 
CONNECTICUT AVENUE BRIDGE 
WALNUT LANE BRIDGE 
ROCKY RIVER BRIDGE 
CHERRY STREET BRIDGE 
CHERRY STREET BRIDGE 
CHERRY ST. BRIDGE. DETAIL OF PROPOSED TOWER 
CONCRETE HIGHWAY BRIDGE 
KING AVENUE BRIDGE 
KING AVENUE BRIDGE. DETAILS 
THIRD STREET BRIDGE 
THIRD STREET BRIDGE. DETAIL 
BROAD STREET BRIDGE 
CONCRETE HIGHWAY BRIDGE 
CONCRETE HIGHWAY BRIDGE 
WILLOUGHBY BRIDGE. DETAIL OF RAILING 
CONCRETE RAILWAY BRIDGE 
MAYO’S BRIDGE OVER THE JAMES RIVER 
MAYO’S BRIDGE OVER THE JAMES RIVER 
CONCRETE VIADUCT OVER THE CUYAHOGA RIVER 
RAILROAD BRIDGE OVER THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 
ISLAND PARK BRIDGE 
LONG SPAN CONGRETE BRIDGE ACROSS THE SEINE 


CONGRETE VIADUCT ON D., L. & W. R.R. 


CONCRETE VIADUCT ON D., L. & W. R. R. 


WASHINGTON STREET MEMORIAL BRIDGE 


LOCATION 
CASTLETON, NEW YORK 
HAVRE DE GRACE, MARYLAND 
MAYENCE, GERMANY 
COLOGNE, GERMANY 
COBLENZ, GERMANY 
CLEVELAND, OHIO 
WASHINGTON, D. GC. 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 
CLEVELAND, OHIO 
TOLEDO, OHIO 
TOLEDO, OHIO 
TOLEDO, OHIO 
ALLENTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 
COLUMBUS, OHIO 
COLUMBUS, OHIO 
COLUMBUS, OHIO 


COLUMBUS, OHIO 


COLUMBUS, OHIO 
WILLOUGHBY, OHIO 
WILLOUGHBY, OHIO 


WILLOUGHBY, OHIO 


WILLOUGHBY, OHIO 
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 
AKRON, OHIO 

HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 
DAYTON, OHIO 

PARIS 


TUNKHANNOCK, 
PENNSYLVANIA 


DELAWARE WATER GAP, 
PENNSYLVANIA 


WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 


PLATE 


CXXVI 


CXXVII 


CXXVIIL 


CXXIX 


CXXX 


CXXXI 


CXXXII 


CXXXIII 


CXXXIV 


CXXXV 


CXXXVI 


CXXXVII 


CXXXVIII 


GXXXIX 


CXL 


CXLI 


CXLIL 


CXLIII 


CXLIV 


CXLV 


CXLVI 


CXLVIL 


CXLVILI 


CXLIX 


CL 


CLI 


cLII 


CLIT 


PAGE 


194 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


NAME 
WASHINGTON STREET MEMORIAL BRIDGE 
WASHINGTON STREET MEMORIAL BRIDGE 
Q STREET BRIDGE OVER ROCK CREEK PARK 
BRIDGE OVER THE MONONGAHELA RIVER 
CABRILLO BRIDGE 
CAPPELEN BRIDGE OVER THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER 


ROBERT STREET BRIDGE OVER THE MISSISSIPPI 
RIVER 


ROBERT STREET BRIDGE OVER THE MISSISSIPPI 
RIVER. DETAIL 


BRIDGE OVER MERRIMAC RIVER 
PONT BUTIN 
PONT DE MALLING 


PONTE CAVOUR 


PONTE UMBERTO 


WESTCHESTER COUNTY PARK BRIDGE 


FRANCIS SCOTT KEY BRIDGE 


CONCRETE BRIDGE—STATE HIGHWAYS 


CONCRETE BRIDGE—STATE HIGHWAYS 


CONCRETE BRIDGE—STATE HIGHWAYS 


CONCRETE RAILWAY BRIDGE OVER STREET 


CONCRETE RAILWAY BRIDGE OVER STREET 


RAILROAD BRIDGE 


CONCRETE BRIDGE OVER WEST CANADA GREEK 


CONCRETE SLAB BRIDGE 


SMALL GONGRETE AND BRICK BRIDGE 


CONCRETE BRIDGE ON FIFTH STREET 


CONCRETE BRIDGE ON “D” STREET 


CONCRETE BRIDGE 


CONGRETE BRIDGE 


SUMMIT STREET BRIDGE 


DETAIL OF LAMP POST 


MEMORIAL BRIDGE 


SMALL PARK BRIDGE 


LOCATION 
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 
FAIRMONT, WEST VIRGINIA 
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 


MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 


ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 


ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 
HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS 
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND 
LORRAINE 

ROME 

ROME 

SCARSDALE, NEW YORK 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 
CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA 

CLEVELAND, OHIO 
CLEVELAND, OHIO 
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 
HERKIMER, NEW YORK 
NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO 
CINCINNATI, OHIO 
LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA 
LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA 
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 
NORTH GAROLINA 
WARREN, OHIO 

WARREN, OHIO 

CHESTER, PENNSYLVANIA 


MONTCLAIR, NEW JERSEY 


PLATE 


CLIV 


CLV 


CLVI 


CLVIL 


CLVIII 


CLIX 


CLX 


CLXI 


CLXII 


CLXIII 


CLXIV 


CLXV 


CLXVI 


CLXVII 


CLXVIII 


CLXIX 


CLXX 


CLXXI 


CLXXIT 


CLXXIII 


CLXXIV 


CLXXV 


CLXXVI 


CLXXVII 


CLXXVIII 


CLXXIX 


CLXXX 


CLXXXI 


CLXXXII 


CLXXXILIL-A 262 


— a 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


NAME 
SMALL PARK BRIDGE 
SMALL CONCRETE HIGHWAY BRIDGE 
SMALL CONCRETE ARCH BRIDGE 
A UNIQUE BRIDGE PORTAL 
CONCRETE FOOT BRIDGE WITH BRICK PANELS 
FINDLAY STREET BRIDGE 
HILLIARD ROAD BRIDGE 
DETAIL OF CONCRETE BRIDGE 
DETAIL OF STAIRWAY 
DETAIL OF RAILING. C. A. P. TURNER, ENGINEER 
CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE. DETAIL 
MATANZAS RIVER BRIDGE 
DOUBLE SWING BRIDGE 
THE TOWER BRIDGE 


THE ANACOSTIA BRIDGE 


THE CHERRY STREET BRIDGE OVER THE MAUMEE 


RIVER 
BASCULE SPAN OF ARLINGTON BRIDGE 
MICHIGAN AVENUE BRIDGE 
WEST MADISON STREET BRIDGE 


FRANKLIN STREET BRIDGE 


LOCATION 
MONTCLAIR, NEW JERSEY 
PIEDMONT, CALIFORNIA 
PIEDMONT, CALIFORNIA 
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 
CINCINNATI, OHIO 
DAYTON, OHIO 
CLEVELAND, OHIO 
BAVARIA 


GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 


BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 
ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA 
WILHELMSHAVEN, GERMANY 
LONDON 


WASHINGTON, D. C. 


TOLEDO, OHIO 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 
CHICAGO, TLLINOIS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 


CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 


PLATE PAGE 


CLXXXIL-B 263 


CLXXXIV-A 264 


CLXXXIV-B 265 


CLXXXV 266 


CGLXXXVI 267 


CLXXXVII 268 


CLXXXVIII 269 


CLXXXIX 270 


210 

208 
CXC 270 
CXCI 271 
CXCIL 272 
CXCIII 273 
CXCIV 274 
CXCV 275 
CXCVI 276 


CXCVIL 207 


CXCVIITI 278 


CXCLX 279 


« 


raynga cannes 


SEGOVIA, SPAIN—DETAIL OF ROMAN AQUEDUCT—98 A.D. 


PHOTO BY LOUIS LA BEAUME 


Pie Gh ARCHITEOCLURE 


“ik late Daniel H. Burnham once defined archi- 
js tecture as “the art of creating an agreeable 

4 } form.” Bridge architecture then may be defined 
kta as the art of creating bridges agreeable in form; 
fan art, of course, that must conform to the re- 
ve \ » quirements of the science of bridge engineering. 
. Granting that human happiness is greatly 


. 848 enhanced by beautiful and pleasing surround- 
ings, it is highly desirable that utilitarian structures such as bridges 
should be as pleasing to the eye as it is practicable to make them and 
that there should be greater collaboration between the architect and 
the engineer with a realization on the part of each that science without 
art is apt to be unattractive and art without science inefficient. 

The purpose of this work is to illustrate the art of good bridge 
design, both as to composition and detail, as exemplified by ancient 
and modern bridges, utilizing selected photographs for this purpose. 

The text includes descriptions of many of the bridges illustrated, 
some historical data and considerable literary and legendary lore, all of 
which the author hopes will be found of interest to the lay reader, as 
well as to the engineer and the architect. With this object in view, tech- 
nical terms have been avoided as much as possible and technical data 
for the most part has been omitted. 

The data contained herein has been gathered from many sources, but 
largely from the books listed under “Bibliography.” The photographs 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE | 
have been collected over a period of years from many sources. Wherever 
possible, full credit has been given to the designers of the structure illus- 
trated. and also to the source from which the photograph was obtained. 

The reader will note that many of the best designed bridges of the 
Modern Period are those in the design of which engineers and architects 
collaborated. 

Critical quotations from various writers, ancient and modern, have 
been freely used in this text, and the reader will note that there is con- 
siderable disagreement among these writers on many questions of archi- 
tectural design, such as the propriety of using the classical architectural 
motives as ornamental features on bridges. 

While a small amount of original criticism of certain designs and 
tendencies will be found in the text, it has been the author’s aim to bring 
together, under a single cover, a considerable number of illustrations of 
selected designs for critical study by the reader. 

The bridge is one of the most important of architectural develop- 
ments, and it is with the hope of quickening interest in the subject that 
this volume has been prepared. 

Special acknowledgment for valuable assistance is made to Professor 
F. H. Neff, Professor F. H. Constant, Professor Geo. 5. Beggs, Mr. 
Clement E. Chase, all members of the American Society of Civil Engi- 
neers. to Mr. A. T. North, member of the American Institute of Archi- 
tects. and to Mr. William Ganson Rose, editorial counsellor. 


[ 18 | 


—— 


a eo ee " 
om Sar eae ee ae ee a a ae 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


CLASSIFICATION BY TYPES 


BRIDGES ARE CONSIDERED HEREIN AS DIVIDED INTO FIVE TYPES, EACH 
TYPE UTILIZING A DIFFERENT MECHANICAL PRINCIPLE 
AS THE BASIS OF ITS DESIGN, AS FOLLOWS: 


THE ARCH 
The Arch, the mechanical principle of which is that of a 
curved structure, the elements depending upon the com- 
pressive strength of the material used. The corresponding 
example in nature is the natural stone arch. 


THE SIMPLE BEAM 
The Simple Beam, depending primarily upon the bending 
strength of the material. The natural example is that of 
the fallen tree spanning a stream. 


THE SUSPENSION 
The Suspension, or cable bridge, utilizing the simple prin- 
ciple of the cord in direct tension, as illustrated in nature 
by the swinging vine, utilized by monkeys in passing from 
one tree to another. 


[19 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


THE CANTILEVER 


The Cantilever, making use of mechanical principles similar 
to those of the simple beam, but requiring an anchorage 
at one end. Quite probably, primitive man discovered the 
principle at a very early stage of his development, and made 
use of it to construct longer spans than he was able to 
build with simple beams. 


THE TRUSS 


The Truss, requiring the use of connected members, some 
in compression, some in tension, and some as simple 
beams, seems to have been utterly beyond the comprehen- 
sion of the barbarian, and, in fact, belongs almost exclu- 
sively to modern civilization. 


CLASSIFICATION BY PERIODS 


ISTORICALLY, bridges are convenient- 
ly assigned to six periods: 


FIRST PERIOD 
The Ancient Period, preceding the Roman 
Era, during which most bridges, in Europe, 
at least, were of the beam type. Arch bridges 
were probably built in China prior to the 
Roman Era, and the arch was used by the 
ancient Egyptians in other constructions. 


SECOND PERIOD 
The Roman Period, during which the Ro- 
mans introduced the extensive use of the 
arch principle, dating from 300 B. C. to 300 
A. D., covering a period of about 600 years. 


THIRD PERIOD 

The Middle Ages in Europe, from the elev- 
enth to the sixteenth centuries, characterized 
chiefly by the construction of massive, more 
or less crudely designed and executed arches 
of masonry, but including also many arches 
of bold and slender proportions. During 
this period, practically all culture 
centered in the religious orders, and, there- 
fore, most of the bridges were built by monks. 
During this period finer work was probably 
being done by the Chinese. 


Was 


FOURTH PERIOD 


The Renaissance in Europe, occurring dur- 
ing the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 
exhibited much greater refinement of both 
design and construction. It is worthy of 
note that up to the eighteenth century, no 
distinction was made between the architect 
and the engineer, the master builders of those 
days devoting their talents to the design of 
both buildings and bridges. 


FIFTH PERIOD 


The Eighteenth Century, including the first 
quarter of the nineteenth, during which 
the masonry arch reached its greatest perfec- 
tion, and engineers, skilled and specializing 
in bridge construction, made their appear- 
ance. Prominent among these first bridge 
engineers were the Rennies in England and 
Perronet in France. 


SIXTH PERIOD 


The Modern Period, beginning with the 
advent of the railroad about 1830, and 
characterized by the utilization of all of the 
five basic types, but more especially by the 
perfection of the truss type, due to the avail- 
ability of structural iron and steel. | 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


WUOK MAN ‘SOLOHd GTHOM AGIM SAWIL WOUd OLOHd 
ADGINd TVYNLVN NIMGA AHL—-AVLO—I ALVId 


ee 


- 
he) 


TURE 


| 
A 


PARC HT Eat 


Brel) GE 


NOGNOT ‘ALIHM AGNAWIO NHOL Ad OLOHd 


LOOA-0€I—ADGINd YHAATILNVO YHANIL AALLINTYd—VISV “(NVLOHE@—IT ALY Id 


HITECTURE 


ARG 


BRIDGE 


HOWNHO TVdOOSIdd LSIGOHLAW AHL dO SHIONADY SOLAUHS GTHOM WOU OLOHd 


NMONYMNO AOV—HOUV AYNOSVN GAYAHAOO—VNIHD “ONIY-DONOHD—IIT ALV 1d 


TeV TTT TRTIT OOOO 


“aa ae" 


ec 
—egearere! 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


OLAd AO GNWISI GHYOVS 


NNVWHOSYHOd LSNYA A . VNIHO ANOSaYu ALI, | WOYUd OLOHd 


‘ 


‘MAVT JO NIVY AHL JO AYALSVNOW AHL OL ADGIYA—VNIHD ‘NVHS,OLOd—AL ALVWTd 


r, 
| 


Ue 


C 


i) 
by 


f ARCH TT I 


BRL DIGE 


NNVAHOSUSO@ ISNYA , ‘VNIHO andsauasota,, woud 
HOCH AVIS ANOLS—VNIHO ‘QNOHONVH—A BLY Id 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


MYOA MAN SHOLTAYHS OLOHd SHUAHSITANd AW LHDIWAdOO 


UVOVNIYS LY HAA WWIAHE AHL YHAO ADGINA HOUV YAAWLL—VISV ‘AYAINHSVO 


—IA ALV'Td 


[ 27 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


HOLI4 “d “LAOU AM OLOHA 
NVOHO-AZS LV AOC NOISNHdSAS—VNIHO—IIA ALWId 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


“OV DYUAANYON-DYNASDOV MIMAVANANTHOSVA WOWd OLOHd 


Ad XL NOOLNOd—NYOH NACGTIOD AHL YHAO AOCGIYA—HWIdONILNVLSNOD—ITA ALY Td 


I. THE ANCIENT PERIOD 


Ancient Cantilever Bridges in Asta 

RIDGES of this type are common today 

in Central Asia, and have been in exis- 
tence since ancient times. The timber parts, 
of course, require periodic replacement, but 
the design has probably remained un- 
changed for ages. 

Plate 11 shows a bridge in Bhutan, which 
is of unknown age, but reputed to be very 
old. The span of this particular bridge is 130 
feet. The photograph was taken by John 


Claude White. 


Anctent Chinese Arches 

Many fine stone arches are to be found in 
China; and while little definite data is avail- 
able regarding them, and especially their ages, 
enough is known to prove that many of them 
are perhaps over 2000 years old, although 
some of those herein illustrated are probably 
of comparatively recent date, but may be con- 
sidered as representative of an art that is, in 
itself, undoubtedly ancient. Some of these 
structures are beautiful and demonstrate that 
the Chinese were familiar with many refine- 
ments of the art long before these refinements 
were practiced in Europe. For instance, the 
projecting extradosal course, which appears 
first in European bridge architecture about 
the fifteenth century, was used in an old 
structure at Chung-King, shown in Plate 1. 

Has Europe anything that surpasses the 
simple beauty of the structure at Pu’to’shan, 


photographed by Ernst Boerschmann and 
illustrated in his “Picturesque China’? 
(Plate Iv.) 

Some of these old Chinese masonry bridges 
are quite long. Boerschmann shows one com- 
prising fourteen arches, and similar bridges 
are described in the writings of Marco Polo, 
who visited China in the thirteenth century 
A. D. The Chinese have also some interesting 
bridges of other types than the arch. For in- 
stance, there is a bridge of stone slabs on stone 
piers at Hanchou, the piers decorated with 
carved heads of animals. (Plate vy, Boersch- 
mann.) 

There also exist in Eastern Asia good ex- 
amples of bridges of the timber arch type sup- 
ported on stone piers, as shown by a bridge 
in Cashmere, Plate vI, and the suspension 
type, illustrated by a bridge in Northern 
Sze-Chuan, built of bamboo cables about 
eight inches in diameter, Plate vil. In Japan 
there are many beautiful bridges of timber, 
most of them utilizing the beam principle, 


-and renewed as required. The rebuilt struc- 


ture is usually an exact reproduction of the 
old, thus perpetuating the design, which may 
be ancient, while the existing structure is 
recent. 

Little is known regarding the ancient 
bridges of Western Asia. It is supposed that 
brick arch bridges spanned the Euphrates at 
Babylon, and a writer asserts that one of these 
had a span of 660 feet, a statement that seems 


[ 30 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


improbable, and not to be taken seriously. 

Some early writers and travelers must have 
possessed vivid imaginations. George Semple, 
writing in 1776, describes a stone bridge in 
China, which he calls the Bridge over the 
River Saffrany, spanning 600 feet in a single 
arch, and having a height from its foundation 
to the top of the parapets of 750 feet and 
which was known to travelers as the Flying 
Bridge. It must have flown away. 

There are old bridges in Persia, but definite 
information regarding them is not obtain- 
able. Some were undoubtedly Roman in ori- 
gin. One at Dizful, over the river Diz, has a 
length of 1250 feet, contains twenty pointed 
arches, and is variously dated from 350 B.C. 
to 300 A.D. Many of these old Persian bridges 
are built of brick and reflect the influence of 
Byzantine architecture. 


Ancient Pontoon or Floating Bridges 
Herodotus tells us that Xerxes built a pon- 
toon bridge over the Hellespont to facilitate 
his invasion of Greece in the year 480 B.C. 
According to the noted historian, this bridge 
was double, consisting of one line of 360 boats 
and another of 314, the construction being 
quite similar to the military pontoon bridges 
of the present day, extensively used in the 
World War. 

Herodotus states that it took the Persians 
seven days and nights to pass over it, march- 
ing in two steady streams. The width of the 
straits at this point is about a mile, which 
would correspond to a spacing of the boats 
of about fifteen feet. Similar bridges are men- 
tioned by Homer, who lived in the ninth 
century B.C., and Xenophon describes one he 


built over the Tigris in the “Retreat of the 
Ten Thousand.” 

These pontoon bridges belong to the beam 
type, the stationary piers being replaced by 
boats or pontoons, which support the ends 
of the beams that carry the roadway plat- 
form. They are crude, requiring but little 
architectural skill. 

While the pontoon type is usually employ- 
ed for temporary purposes only, some exist- 
ing structures have served for very long peri- 
ods, with more or less frequent repairs and 
rebuilding. One of the most important of such 
bridges is that over the Golden Horn at Con- 
stantinople, recently rebuilt, and illustrated 
by Plate vim. 


Ancient Pile or Trestle Bridges 

The Sublician is supposed to have been the 
first bridge over the River Tiber constructed 
by the Romans, and was famous as the bridge 
defended so heroically by Horatius Cocles, 
who single-handed held the Etruscan army 
at bay while his comrades destroyed the 
bridge behind him. As a matter of fact, it 
was a crude pile and beam structure of tim- 
ber, the precise details of the construction 
being a matter of conjecture. Such timber 
pile bridges are doubtless of ancient origin, 
as the pre-historic lake dwellers of Europe 
used a similar construction on which to build 
their rude huts, which were accessible only 
by means of a pile and beam bridge connect- 
ing with the land, the ancient prototype of 
the modern timber trestle so familiar to us all. 

At one time, about 620 B.C., the Sublician 
Bridge was rebuilt by the Chief Priests, to 
whom its maintenance seems to have been 


[ 31 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


entrusted. It is said that they thereupon 
assumed the title of pontifices, a title which 
was appropriated and perpetuated by the 
Christian Church and is supposed to be the 
origin of the title of the Popes, The Holy 
Pontiffs. 

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 
the word ‘‘pontifex”’ is evidently derived from 
‘pons’ (bridge), and “‘facere,’ and is be- 
lieved to have a connection of some kind with 
the sacred bridge over the Tiber known as 
the Pons Sublicius, although this is disputed. 
The Collegium of the Pontifices was the most 
important priesthood of Rome. The head of 
the order came to be known, under the Re- 
public, as the Pontifex Maximus, and under 
the Empire this title was assumed by the 
Emperors themselves. With the decay of the 
Empire and rise of the Christian Church to 
temporal power, this title naturally fell to 
the Popes. So the highest religious title in 
Christendom probably is derived from, or is 
synonymic with, that of the humble bridge 
builder. 

The Pons Sublicius seems never to have 
been rebuilt in stone, but was always re- 
tained as a timber bridge, possibly for senti- 
mental reasons. 


Caesar's Bridge over the Rhine 
The military bridge which Julius Caesar said 
he built across the Rhine in ten days’ time 
has been a model for timber pile bridges ever 
since. The design consisted of pile piers which 
were protected by ice breakers formed of 
groups of three piles. These pile piers were 
capped with rough timbers which supported 
the lintels or beams, also of rough timbers, 


[ 3: 


and these in turn carried the flooring, a de- 
scription easily recognized as applying to the 
typical modern timber trestle bridge. This 
bridge was about 124 meters (40 feet) wide 
and 425 to 525 meters (1300 to 1600 feet) in 
length. The individual spans were approx- 
imately 614 to 8 meters (20 to 25 feet). 

The work is thus described in Caesar’s 
Commentaries, the dimensions being given 
in Roman feet, only slightly different from 
the modern unit of the same name. 

‘He joined together at the distance of two 
feet, two piles each a foot and a half thick, 
sharpened a little at the lower end, and pro- 
portioned in length to the depth of the river. 
After he had, by means of engines (pile driver 
or any other machinery), sunk these into the 
river and fixed them at the bottom, and then 
driven them in with rammers, not quite 
perpendicularly like a stake, but bending 
forward and sloping, so as to incline in the 
direction of the current of the river; he also 
placed two other piles opposite to these, at 
the distance of forty feet lower down, fastened 
together in the same manner but directed 
against the force and current of the river. 
Both these, moreover, were kept firmly apart 
by beams two feet thick (the space which the 
binding of the piles occupied), laid in at their 
extremities between two braces on each side; 
and in consequence of these being in different 
directions and fastened on sides the one oppo- 
site to the other, so great was the strength of 
the work, and such the arrangement of the 
materials, that in proportion as the greater 
body of water dashed against the bridge, so 
much the closer were its parts held fastened 
together. These beams were bound together 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


by timber laid over them in the direction of 
the length of the bridge and were then covered 
over with laths and hurdles; and in addition 
to this, piles were driven into the water 
obliquely, at the lower side of the bridge, and 
these serving as buttresses, and being con- 
nected with every portion of the work, sus- 
tained the force of the stream; and there were 
others also above the bridge at a moderate 
distance; that if trunks of trees or vessels 
were floated down the river by the barbarians 
for the purpose of destroying the work, the 
violence of such things might be diminished 
by these defences, and might not injure the 
bridge. Within ten days after the timber 
began to be collected the whole work was 
completed, and the whole army led over.”’ 

Like most military bridges, this famous 
structure was short lived, being cut down by 
order of Caesar himself only eighteen days 
later, having served its purpose. Without 
doubt, the Roman armies built many such 
structures. 

The pile or trestle bridge, like the pontoon 
type, admits of but slight architectural treat- 
ment, although many such structures have 


FROM “CAESAR’S COMMENTARIES,” KELSEY 


been embellished with more or less artistic 
timber railings, and, when of rustic design, 
used for small and light bridges, can be made 
very attractive. 


Trajan’s Bridge over the Danube 
This was one of the most famous of the early 
Roman Bridges, and while neither an accurate 
description nor sufficient ruins for recon- 
structing it have comedown to us, it is known 
to have consisted of twenty spans of timber 
arches, supported upon masonry piers, and 
was therefore the first notable example of the 
use of this combination. The ruins of thirteen 
piers are still visible at the site, which is just 
above the “Iron Gate” of the Danube. 

The design is illustrated on the Arch of 
Trajan at Rome, and attributed to one Apol- 
lodorus of Damascus. 

This bridge was built by Trajan in order 
that he might the more readily get at the 
barbarians to the north of the Danube, and 
it is of interest, historically, to note that a 
little later it was demolished by order of the 
Emperor Hadrian because, it is said, the 
tables had been turned and the barbarians 
were using it in order to get back at the 
Romans. Ancient records state that this proj- 
ect was completed in a single season. 

These timber bridges constructed by the 
Romans were only copies of types that doubt- 
less were common in Europe as well as in 
Asia for many centuries preceding the Roman 
era and they therefore belong, historically, to 
ancient times. 

The true Roman Era in bridge building 
began with the use of the masonry arch, 
which the Romans developed to a high degree 


[ 33 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


of perfection. Nevertheless, the typical Roman 
bridge was doubtless always a timber pile 
trestle, even in the days of the Empire, and, 
that these structures were not always well 
built or safe is shown by many references to 
them in Roman literature, such as the follow- 
ing human quotation from Catullus: 

“OQ, Colonia, you who desire to sport on a 
long bridge and are prepared to hold your 
feasts, but you fear the shaky legs of the 
little bridge standing on second hand sticks, 
lest it would tumble flat, and lie in the deep 
marsh. O, Colonia, give me this gift, of a 
great laugh, if a good bridge on which the 
sacred feasts of the Saturnalia might be 
held is given to you for your games. I wish 


that a certain fellow townsman of mine might 
fall from your bridge head over heels into 
the mud and in truth where the lake and the 
brimy, stinking swamp is darkest and deep- 
est.”’ Catullus (87-55 B. C.) 

It seems strange that the Greeks, who de- 
veloped an architecture so beautiful and per- 
fect that it has remained the wonder of all 
succeeding ages, built no bridges worthy of 
mention. The answer is to be found in the 
fact that the Greeks built no great highways; 
they were a sea-faring people and their one 
great highway was the Mediterranean Sea, 
on the shores of which they founded their 
beautiful cities, and over the waters of which 
they maintained intercity communication. 


Il. THE ROMAN PERIOD 


Roman Bridges over the Tiber at Rome 
There are in existence today, wholly or par- 
tially intact, six old bridges over the Tiber 
dating back to Roman times, the Ponte 
Rotto, the Ponte Sisto, the Ponte Quattro 
Capi, the Ponte St. Angelo, the Ponte Molle 
and the Ponte Cestius. 

The Ponte Rotto, known to the Romans 
as the Pons Aemilius (named for the Pontifex 
Maximum M. Aemilius Lepidus) and to Pal- 
ladio'- as the Pons Palatinus, is the most 
ancient of existing Roman Bridges, but the 
present ruins of the arches are believed, in the 
absence of historical records, to be replace- 
ments, at least in part, of the original spans. 
The arches have spans of 24 meters* and the 
material used was peperino and tufa for the 
arches, with a facing of travertine. These 
Same materials were used for the other exist- 


*One meter equals 3.28 feet. 


ing Roman bridges. (Plate Ix.) 

The Ponte Sisto as it now exists is believed 
to have been rebuilt upon the foundations of 
the old Pons Aurelius or Palatine Bridge by 
Pope Sixtus IV about 1480, so that probably 
only parts are Roman. (Plate x.) 

The present Ponte Quattro Capi is the 
ancient Bridge of Fabricius, built in the year 
62 B. C. and is practically intact as then 


- built. The modern name is derived from an 


emblem representing the four-headed Janus, 
carved on the bridge parapet. The arches 
have spans of 25 and 34 meters and the width 
is 15 meters. The structure was repaired in 
1680. 

The two segmental arches spring from the 
water level and the spandrel over the center 
pier is pierced by a large arched opening 
flanked by two pilasters carried to the cop- 


[ 34 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ing line. There is a pleasing contrast between 
the large stones of the arch rings and 
parapet and the small material used for the 
spandrel walls. (Plate xt.) 

The Ponte St. Angelo is the Pons Aelius of 
Roman times, built by the Emperor Hadrian 
in 134 A. D., and consisted of eight arches 
having a maximum span of 20 meters. The 
present parapets were added in the seven- 
teenth century and contain ten statues by 
Bernini, the architect who designed the great 
Colonnade of St. Peter’s. The modern bridge 
has but five arches admitted to be part of 
the original construction. These arches have 
projecting extradosal courses and carefully 
coursed masonry throughout. (Plate XII.) 

The Pons Milvius (modern Ponte Molle), 
located on the Flaminian Way, was built 
originally in 109 B. G., by M. Aemilius 
Seaurus, but only parts of the present struc- 
ture are believed to be the original work. 
(Plate XIIT.) 

The Pons Cestius (modern Ponte St. Bar- 
tolomew), built in 43 B. C. and rebuilt about 
370 A. D., is in good condition and contains 
much of the original masonry in spite of 
numerous restorations. [t consists of a single 
arch. 


Roman Bridge at Rimini, Italy 
This is a fine example of Roman bridge build- 
ing and is also noted as being the oldest 
known bridge built on a skew (with the piers 
not at right angles with the axis of the 
bridge). The amount of skew is only 13 
degrees and the arch rings are built with 
horizontal joints. The spans are five In num- 
ber, from 8% to 11 meters in length, sup- 


ported by piers about 6! meters thick. 

The material used for the facing is marble 
and the spandrels are decorated with niches, 
flanked by pilasters carrying an entablature 
and pediment. Dentils are also used under 
the overhanging parapet or coping course. 
The architectural embellishment is unusual 
for a Roman bridge, most of them being ex- 
tremely plain and entirely devoid of applied 
ornament. This structure was built by the 
Emperor Augustus in 14 A. D., and is known 
as the Ponte di Augusto. (Plate xIv.) 


The Pont du Gard, Nimes 

The Romans required large quantities of 
water for use in their baths and amphitheatres 
and as they did not possess the necessary 
materials to build pipes to resist large inter- 
nal pressures, they could not use the siphon 
principle upon which modern engineers rely, 
and were, therefore, compelled to build numer- 
ous huge aqueducts to bring the water to 
them by gravity. There are many remains of 
these aqueducts at Rome and in the provinces. 
One of the best preserved examples is the 
aqueduct at Nimes in France, attributed to 
the Emperor Agrippa and to the year 14. A.D., 
although this is uncertain. The total length 
of the conduit is 40 kilometers, the aqueduct 
bridge itself being about 262 meters long and 
51.7 meters high. 

The design consists of three tiers of arches, 
the effect of mass being augmented by the 
projection of numerous stones from the faces 
of piers and spandrels. These projecting stones 
were used for the support of scaffolding dur- 
ing construction. 

“The stone of this bridge is a yellowish 


[ 35 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


color. Seen under the sun from the west side, 
the bridge has a brightish yellow tint, with 
patches of dark color, due to the weather. 
The stone in the highest tier is a concretion 
of shells and sand, and that in the lower tiers 
appears to be the same. The stones of the 
two lower layers are without cement; but the 
arches of the upper tier, which are built with 
much smaller stones, are cemented.” (Sir 
William Smith.) The conduit itself is of con- 
crete, 1.30 meters wide and 1.60 meters high 
(Sparrow) and the thickness of the bed is 22 
centimeters. The arches of the lower tier have 
spans of 26.4 meters each. A roadway has 
been added to the structure at the level of the 
first tier of arches. This is a modern addition. 
(Plate xv.) 

‘“_.. It bridges the streams and it strides 
oer the plain; 


TOWER AT CENTER OF ALCANTARA BRIDGE 


In its arm is the river it sets down again 
For the fevered metropolis’ dower.” 
(Song of the Roman Arch—Durward.) 


There exist throughout France many fine 
examples of Roman Bridges. Worthy of espe- 
cial note is the bridge at Sommieres, consist- 
ing of seventeen semi-circular arches, and still 
in use, and a small but exquisite structure 
near St. Chamas, known as the Pont Flavien, 
comprising elaborate arched memorial portals 
at each end. The name is taken from an in- 
scription on the arch portals which records 
that one Donnius Flavius, a priest from the 
temple of Rome and Augustus, ordered its 
erection in his will. (Plate XVI.) 


Bridge at Alcantara, Spain, over the Tagus, 
on the Via Lata 
(Puente Trajan a’ Alcantara) 


This bridge is one of the most famous as well 
as one of the best preserved of Roman Bridges 
and is attributed to the Emperor Trajan, 
himself a native of Spain, at approximately 
98 A. D. 

The central span is 30 meters long and the 
height above the river is about 30 meters. 
There are six spans in all, making a length of 
bridge of 188 meters, and carrying a roadway 
8 meters wide, an unusual width for a Roman 
Bridge. The architect was Caius Julius Lacer, 
whose name is contained in an inscription on 
the bridge, and the funds were raised in the 
Roman province of Lusitania, in which the 
bridge was located. | 

This noble monument to Roman enter- 
prise and skill was partly destroyed in the 
thirteenth century and restored in the fif- 


[ 36 | 


ee SS eee ee 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


teenth, and again partly destroyed in the 
early part of the nineteenth century and fully 
restored about 1860. Al Kan’tara means in 
Arabian “The Bridge.” (Plate XVII.) 


Roman Aqueduct at Segovia, Spain 
This is one of the best preserved, as well as 
one of the noblest, of Roman Aqueducts. It 
also was built by the Emperor Trajan, about 
the same time as the bridge at Alcantara, 
98 A. D., and is also constructed of granite 
blocks, laid without mortar. This structure 
is built with offsets at the tops of the several 
tiers, obtaining the effect of battered walls, 
by decreasing the thickness of the several 
stages—a detail of design essentially Roman. 

There are 119 arches, in two tiers, and the 
length is 876 meters for the arch structure, 
flanked by a solid wall 880 meters long. This 
structure is known locally as the Devil’s 
Bridge, one of the many so-called, and the 
name is connected with a legend, which is 
charmingly told in “Castilian Days” by John 
Hay. ““The Evil One was in love with a pretty 
girl of the upper town and full of protesta- 
tions of love. The fair Segovian listened to 
him one evening, when her plump arms ached 
with the work of bringing water from the 
Ravina, and promised eyes to favor if his 
Infernal Majesty would build an aqueduct to 
her door before morning. He worked all night, 
like the devil, and the maiden, opening her 
black eyes at sunrise, saw him putting the 
last stone in the last arch, as the first ray of 
the sun lighted on his shining tail. The 
Church, we think very unfairly, decided that 
he had failed, and released the coquettish 
contractor from her promise, and it is said 


that the devil has never trusted a Segovian 
out of his sight since.’ 

Study of the detail photographs of this 
structure, taken by Louis La Beaume, show 
plainly the Roman methods of construction. 
All stones have at least one exposed face and 
the bonds are quite regular, with an occasion- 
al header extending clear across the arch 
soffit, which is quite narrow. (Plates XVII, 
BG LO) 


Roman Engineering 
The bridges built by the Romans were merely 
links in a great, comprehensive system of 
highly improved highways connecting all 
parts of the great Roman Empire with the 
Eternal City. The expression “All roads lead 
to Rome” was a verity. 

It has been said that a resident of Britain 
in Roman times—and the Romans lived in 
Britain for nearly four hundred years—could 
drive to London, embark there for the main- 
land, and after crossing the channel could 
drive to Rome over highly improved and 
paved roads without fording a single stream. 

The roads were one of the great outstanding 
achievements of the Roman genius. Their art 
they borrowed, or rather commandeered, from 
the Greeks, but their engineering was the 
expression of their own spirit. 

Roman engineering skill was not confined 
to the construction of roads and _ bridges, 
however, but included magnificent buildings, 
great baths and the aqueducts and sewers to 
serve them, amphitheaters that have never 
been excelled, and, of course, military de- 
fences of all kinds. 

Only a few of the vast number of Roman 


[ 37 | 


BRIDGE 


bridges have survived the ravages of time, of 
war and of flood; most have perished, but 
those few are marvels of engineering skill. 
The Romans, however, did not, as a rule, 
exercise as much care in the construction of 
foundations for their structures as they did 
for the superstructures. A common method 
of founding in water was to divert the stream 
temporarily, or build open cofferdams to ex- 
clude the water, and when this was not prac- 
ticable, loose stones were often thrown into 
the water until a platform was obtained, of 


ARCHITECTURE 


sufficient size to serve as a foundation for the 
coursed masonry. 

The Romans understood and practised pile- 
driving, an art very much more ancient than 
Roman History, and they are known to have 
used timber centering for their arches, quite 
similar to that used today. 

The labor employed in the construction of 
these great Roman bridges was doubtless 
mostly slave labor, and the workmen used 
tools and machines of the simplest sort, the 
wedge, the lever, the windlass. 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTU 


eh. 


yi 


PLATE IX—ROME—PONTE ROTTO—ROMAN PERIOD 


FROM AN ETCHING BY ROSSINI. 1822 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


VIHdTaGVTIHd ‘SOIGALS AVY WOUd OLOHA 
AYOLNAOD HINAALAT NI GHYOLSHY “NVWOU ATLYVd ‘OLSIS ALNOd—aANWOYU—X ALVId 


Ly 
pany 


[ 40 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


NOSYHGNV AW OLOHd 


SNOLLVYOLSHY YALVT GNV ‘0'd 29—IdVD OWULLVAO ALNOd—ANWOU—IX ALVId 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


a ato 


AYOLINAOD HINGHLNAAAS 


- Rina ~ 


¥ 


* Ries, 


oo 3 


‘OO ONIHSITHNd LIOULAG AHL NWOWd OLOHd 


NI Gaddv SLUdVuVd—dV Pl ‘NVIUNGVH—OTHONY °S ALNOd—AWOU—-IIX ALWTd 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


INOUd “GH AM OLOHd 
SNOLLVHOLSHY GNV ‘Dd 601 ‘GOIWMHd NVNOY—HATION ALNOd—AWOY—HITX ALVId 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


190ud “da WOUd OLOHd 
FL “AV ‘NVIWOY—OLSNDAV Id ALNOd—ATV.LI ‘ININIH—AIX ALV Td 


cre 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PL GV ‘VddIHDV YOURdNA AHL OL GALAGIULLY—duv) 1d LNOd—aAONVYA ‘SHININ—AX HLVI1d 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


Elevation dun des Arcs pilericurement.a& coupe da Pont 


Fan AP Os OE OE 


ah et EN 


i DONNIVS :C-E- FLAVO S:‘FLAMEN’ ROME 


“ot ae! oe 
<n Light 


T-AVGVS TL-TES TAMENTO.FPIEREL-IVS SIT 


Elevation du Pont et des Ares 


Eehelle du Pont et des Aree ct-dessus 


oe 
gc i ss 
A ei 


* 


-C-DONNELVEN AP-ET-C-AT TELRVFET 


ARBITRA’ 


Anéeription sur lAre au nord-oucst 


“DONNIVS: C-¥ -FLAVOS-FL A MEN-ROMAE-ET-AVGV8 Th 


Plan dun des Ared et une partie de celu’ du Pont ~ 


TESTAMENT O'FIRRELMVS STITT: ARBITRATV 
Cc- DONNET VENAE- ET-C> AT TE: AVFEL 


SOS 


‘ Sh Ae RRR 1 


fee 


3 
3 
: 
§ 
3 
S 
3. 
q 


desnus 


ere 


ations, plan, et coupes des Arc 


Fichelle des eléy 


Impoite ot archwolte de tAre 


waa Sud-eut 


des quatre, detuls 


PLATE XVI—ST. CHAMAS, FRANCE—ROMAN MEMORIAL BRIDGE 


FROM AN OLD ENGRAVING BY J. B. GUIBERT 


os 


ee ee ee eee 


ee 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


GMavwW ‘INGUAVT “f Ad@ OLOHd 
‘AV 86 LOOGV “LOULIHDYV “YAOVT SAITOAL SATVO—ONVNOY ALNANd TH—NIVdS ‘VHV.INVOTVY—IIAX ALVId 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ee 


A y 
= eae iek " 


sy: 1h 


sal oan nae sgh" ok ae : 


(Sat compet IY 


oe! 9% 


ant a 


Pe 


sada ry SSE 


> 
¥ 


ie ati Pa yr Date 


ak a a 


pica Pee) f 


} 
q 


' 


T—BUILT ABOUT 98 A.D. 


=| 
A 


PLATE XVIII—SEGOVIA, SPAIN—ROMAN AQUEDUC 
COPYRIGHT BY PUBLISHERS PHOTO SERVICE, NEW YORK 


BRIDGE ARCHITECGLURE 


‘av 86 LOOdGV LIWNG 


HWOAVAE WT SINOT Ad OLOHd 


—LONGanoOV NVIWOY AO TIVLA 
», Ty 


d—NIVdS ‘VIAODAS—XIX ALVId 


49 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE XX—SEGOVIA, SPAIN—ROMAN AQUEDUCT—BUILT ABOUT 98 A.D. 


IW. THE MIDDLE AGES 


Pont St. Benezel, Avignon 

After the fall of the Roman Empire no bridges 
of importance were built in Europe until 
about the twelfth century, at which period 
some of the most notable medieval structures 
were erected. One of the most famous of these, 
as well as one of the first and the largest, is 
the old bridge at Avignon, built in 1177-1178 
by St. Benezet, containing twenty-two ma- 
sonry arches, of which but four remain. The 
second pier supports a chapel in which repose 
his ashes. The design is rather crude, consist- 
ing of arch rings of uniform thickness, with 
solid spandrels, pierced only over the piers 
and carrying no ornamentation outside of 
the chapel, but the bridge was a noble work 
for those days, being about 900 meters in 
total length. Excepting as to length, this struc- 
ture is far inferior to the Roman Bridges. 
(Plate XXI.) 

Nearly all of the bridges of this period were 
built by the priests, and especially by the 
Benedictine Monks, who were known as ““The 
Brothers of the Bridge.” This order of the 
“Brothers of the Bridge’ (Fratres Pontifices) 
was formed in the twelfth century for the 
purpose of maintaining hospices at bridges 
and important ferries or river crossings. It 
was recognized by Pope Clement III in 1189, 
and became a powerful order, building and 
maintaining many bridges. In fact, this priest- 
ly order represented about all the bridge 
building knowledge and skill that existed 


in Europe during several hundred _ years. 

Traveling was dangerous during those cen- 
turies, the roads and especially the river 
fords being beset with robbers. The protec- 
tion of travelers became one of the duties of 
the religious orders, and the river crossings 
became the sites of shelters or hospices for 
travelers. The work of replacing the dan- 
gerous fords and ferries with bridges naturally 
followed. 

What witnesses of historical events these 
old bridges have been! Most of them have 
been the scenes of desperate battles, and many 
have suffered more from human combat than 
from nature. From their parapets men with- 
out number have been thrown to the streams 
below, sometimes for no greater offense than 
that their religious views differed from those 
of their captors. Most important bridges 
were fortified, and some, like that at Avignon, 
had roadways purposely narrowed at certain 
points so that two vehicles could not pass 
at those places, thus making their defense 
easier. And, indeed, in those rough, troubled 
times there was reason for such precautions. 

Some of these old bridges retain, by name 
or legend, the records of these ancient battles 
and massacres, such as the window in the 
guard room of the old bridge at Orthez (con- 
structed in the fourteenth century), which is 
still called “the Priests’ Window” because the 
Protestant soldiers under Montgomery who 
took the town by assault in 1569 are said to 


[ 51 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


have forced the priests and monks to Jump 
into the river from this window. 

One of the best examples of medieval art 
in fortified bridge construction is the Valentre’ 
Bridge over the River Lot at Cahors, France, 
built in the early part of the fourteenth cen- 
tury and comprising six arches of equal span, 
with solid spandrels, recessed arch rings, and 
pointed cutwaters carried to the full height 
of the spandrel walls and supporting castel- 
lated parapets and three high and graceful 
towers. In these towers every defensive device 
used in the warfare of those days was pro- 
vided, including slots for the crossbow-men 
and convenient ledges for the hurlers of mis- 
siles and pourers of burning oil. 

It is truly a beautiful structure as well as a 
fine example of a medieval fortified bridge. 
Considerable restoration of this structure was 
found necessary in the early nineteenth cen- 
tury. (Plate XXII.) 

Other interesting French bridges of the 
Middle Ages are found at St. Generoux where 
there is a thirteenth century bridge over the 
Thouet, consisting of five arch spans; at 
Airvault, the site of a structure of eleven fine 
arches dating from the twelfth century; at 
Orthez, where stands a bridge, the chief feature 
of which is a graceful center defensive tower 
built in the thirteenth century, and at Mon- 
tauban on the Tarn where there is a fine 
brick bridge constructed in the fourteenth 
century, known as the Pont des Consuls and 
possessing a delightfully mellow color im- 
parted to it by the old brick of which it is 
composed. 

Funds to construct the bridge at Montau- 
ban were raised by a tax on visitors to the 


[15 


J 


town. (Plate XXIII.) 

All of these bridges are well illustrated in 
“Old Bridges of France,” by Emerson & Gro- 
mort. 

While these structures were being built in 
Europe, there were a number of large bridges 
constructed in Persia, notably at Ispahan. 
One of these, known as the Allah Verdi Kahn, 
over the Zayendeh Rud, is 350 meters long 
and carries a 9.1 meter roadway. Another, the 
Pul-i-Khajn, is 137 meters long and has a 7.3 
meter roadway. Both belong to the reign of 
the Shah Abbas II, and to the seventeenth 
century. 

The most important and famous structure 
belonging to this period was the old London 
Bridge, replaced by the existing structure in 
1831, for many centuries of English history 
the only bridge across the Thames at London. 
A bridge has been maintained at this site 
since the days of King Ethelred, and it is 
recorded that one was destroyed in 994 in a 
war between the Londoners and Danes. When 
Canute invaded England in 1015 he found 
this structure in his way and dug a canal 
around its south end in order to complete 
his blockade of the city, which he was unable 
to capture. The bridge was destroyed again 


in 1091 and rebuilt by William Rufus in 1097. 


The latter structure was in turn destroyed by 
fire fifty years later. It was found so costly to 
maintain this timber bridge that it was de- 
termined to build one of stone, and work was 
begun by one Peter, the chaplain of St. Mary’s 
Colechurch, in the year 1176. This ancient 
structure was founded upon piles supporting 
a grillage of plank on which the masonry was 
laid. According to the records, “not less than 


— a ee 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


33 years were occupied in the erection of this 
important structure. It was begun in the 
reign of Henry II, carried on through that of 
Richard I, and finished in the eleventh year 
of King John, 1209. Before then, however, the 
aged priest, its architect, died and was buried 
in the crypt of the chapel which had by that 
time been erected over the center pier. At his 
death, another priest, a Frenchman called 
Isembert, who had displayed much skill in 
constructing the bridges at Saintes and Ro- 
chelle, was recommended by the King as 
Peter’s successor. But this appointment was 
not confirmed by the Mayor and the citizens 
of London who deputed three of their own 
body to superintend the completion of the 
work, the chief difficulties connected with 
which had indeed already been surmounted. 

“That it possessed the elements of stability 
and strength was sufficiently proved by the 
fact that upon it the traffic of London was 
safely borne across the river for more than 
six hundred years. But it was an unsightly 
mass of masonry, so far as the bridge was 
concerned, although the overhanging build- 
ings extending along both sides of the road- 
way, the chapel on the center pier, and the 
adjoining drawbridge, served to give it an 
exceeding picturesque appearance. 

“The piers of the bridge were so close, and 
the arches so low, that at high water they 
resembled a long series of culverts hardly 
deserving the name of arches. The piers were 
of various dimensions, in some cases almost 
as thick as the spans of the arches which they 
supported were wide. 

“This great obstruction of the stream had 
the effect of producing a series of cataracts at 


the rise and fall of each tide, so what was 
called “The roar of the bridge’ was heard a 
long way off. 

“The feat of ‘shooting the bridge’ was in 
those days attended with considerable danger, 
and explains the old proverb that “London 
Bridge was made for wise men to go over and 
fools to go under.’ 

“At the ends of the bridge were the gate 
houses, on the south one of which (until a 
comparative recent period) the grim heads of 
traitors and unfortunate partizans were stuck 
upon poles. 

“The bridge had a long history and many 
vicissitudes. It had scarcely been completed 
ere the timber houses upon it were consumed 
by a great fire, but they were shortly after 
erected in even more cumbrous form than 
before. At a very early period, the bridge 
showed signs of weakness and required con- 
stant patching. In 1281 five arches with the 
buildings over them were carried away in a 
flood. At a subsequent period Stone’s Gate, 
tower and arches at the southward side also 
fell into the river. Generation after generation 
of toiling men and women passed over the 
bridge, wearing its tracks deep with their 
feet, and sometimes moistening them with 
their tears. Still the old bridge stood on, 
almost down to our own day; until at last 
the old structure, which had served its pur- 
pose so long, was condemned and taken down, 
and the magnificent new London Bridge 
erected in its stead.”’ (Samuel Smiles.) 

It is said that the constant repairs required 
to maintain this bridge became so notorious 
that they were immortalized by being incor- 
porated into folk lore and even now our 


[53 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


children play to the tune of the old ditty 
“London Bridge is falling down.” (Plate 
XXIV.) 

It is also said in English folk lore, that 
‘London Bridge is founded upon wool sacks, ” 
derived from the fact that its construction 
was partly financed through a tax on wool. 
In time, this statement became popularly 
accepted as a constructional fact. 


San Martin and Alcantara Bridges, 
Toledo, Spain 


For the best illustrations of the work of the 
succeeding century, the thirteenth, it is neces- 
sary to go to Spain, to Toledo, where two 
fine old bridges are to be found, both of them 
built, or rebuilt, by the Spaniards soon after 
the reconquest of the city from the Moors, 
and probably on the foundations of older 
Roman structures, but both decidedly Moor- 
ish in character, due perhaps to the fact that 
the Moors continued to be the skilled artisans 
of Spain for centuries after the reconquest by 
the Christians. 

Both of these bridges are often attributed 
to the Roman Period. 

They are named the Puente de San Martin, 
built in 1212 and rebuilt in 1390, and the 
Puente de Alcantara, originally a Roman 
Bridge, repaired by the Visigoths and finally 
rebuilt by Halaf, son of Mahomet Alameiri’ 
in 871, and restored in 1258 by a certain D. 
Alfonso, after a severe flood had destroyed 
most of it, as recorded upon a marble slab 
still in place above the point of the arch. 
Further repairs were made to the Alcantara 
in 1380 and again to the towers in 1484. Re- 
garding the restoration of the San Martin in 


1390, the following story of human interest 
is told by George Edmund Street. (Gothic 
Architecture in Spain, 1865.) 

“The Architect perceived that his new arch 
would fall down as soon as the centering was 
removed. Panic stricken, he went home and 
consulted his wife. What could she do to save 
her husband’s reputation? She set fire to the 
scaffolding and destroyed the arch. The next 
time the Architect was wiser and did his work 
better. However, the lady could not keep her 
secret, and it is related that the Archbishop 
Tenorio, upon hearing of her action, did not 
punish her or her husband, but only congrat- 
ulated the Architect upon the possession of 
such a faithful wife.” 

Both of these bridges at Toledo are fortified 
with massive towers at each end. San Martin 
has five arches, the main arch having a span 
of 42.7 meters. The height above the river 
Tagus is about 29 meters. The arches are 
slightly pointed and have a projecting extra- 
dosal course. One of the gateways is distinct- 
ly Moorish. The Alcantara has only two spans 
and is of somewhat more massive and more 
rude design. It is popularly called the Roman 
Bridge. (Plates XXV, XXVI, XXVIJ, XXVIII 
& XXIX.) 

It will be noted from the photographs of 
these as well as of other Middle Age bridges, 
that the cutwaters or ends of the piers, and 
sometimes both, were often carried up to the 
roadway level to form recesses or additional 
roadway. These recesses served for traffic to 
pass at these places, the rest of the roadway 
seldom being of sufficient width to permit the 
passing of vehicles. They also provided con- 
venient places for people to congregate and 


[ 54 | 


ee 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


visit while enjoying the view, a pleasant cus- 
tom that still survives on new as well as on 
old bridges. 

An old French folk song runs thus: 


‘Sur le pont d’Avignon, 
L’on y danse, l’on y danse; 
Sur le pont d’Avignon, 
L’on y danse tout en rond,”’ etc. 
Bridges were always popular for use as 
dance floors, even in Roman times. 


“Devil's Bridges’ and Medieval Bridge 
Folk Lore 

Throughout Europe there are many so-called 
“Devil’s Bridges,’ and the various folk stories 
connected with these bear a curious resem- 
blance. Usually these bridges were supposed 
to have been built over night by the devil, 
and his satanic majesty, in return for his 
work, had demanded the first life that passed 
over. Sometimes the story simply records the 
sacrifice of a life in the construction of the 
bridge. Such traditions also exist in Turkey, 
as shown by the following legend recorded by 
Sir Mark Sykes in “Dar Ul Islam.” 

“Many years ago workmen under their 
masters were set to build the bridge; three 
times the bridge fell, and the workmen said 
‘The Bridge needs a life,’ and the master saw 
a beautiful girl accompanied by a bitch and 
her puppies and he said, “We will give the 
first life that comes by,’ but the dog and her 
puppies held back, so the girl was built alive 
into the bridge and only her hand with a gold 
bracelet upon it was left outside.” 

A similar belief exists in Northern Africa 


among the Moors to the effect that the old 
bridges contain a human body built into the 
masonry and that such a human sacrifice was 
necessary to the stability of the structure. 

Is it not credible that these legends have 
their origin in the circumstance that most 
large bridges as well as other human-built 
structures, have always demanded a sacrifice 
of human life through accident or misfortune, 
if not through strife or barbaric sacrifice? 


‘Go! stand by Karnak’s sculptured halls; 

Count o’er in those cyclopean walls 

The record of her sacrifice 

One life for every stone!’’—(The Building of 
a Church-Durward.) 


Even today such legends are being started. 
Quite recently the author stood under the 
shadow of one of our new great railway 
bridges, over a wide American river, chatting 
with a native fisherman, and was quite grave- 
ly informed that four men were buried alive 
in its concrete piers, the exact location of each 
immuration being pointed out. 

Most of these old, so-called ‘‘Devil’s Bridges” 
are narrow, many of them without parapets 
and some with very steep approaches, ofttimes 
so steep as to merit the term “‘ladder bridges, ” 
sometimes applied to them. Possibly the 
inconvenient features of the design of such 
structures have something to do with the 
popular notion that the devil was in some 
way responsible for their existence. 

One of the best known of these bridges is 
the Devil’s Bridge over the Serchio at Lucca, 
Italy, built about the year 1000, comprising 
a main span of 36.8 meters and four flanking 


[55 | 


BRIDGE: ARCHITECTURE 


spans. This bridge has a roadway only 2.94 
meters wide and its width over all is but 3.93 
meters. The grades are too steep for vehicles, 
as, like most of the bridges of its type and 
time, it was intended for foot travel, donkeys 
and small carts. 

The material used is blue limestone and 
sandstone; the arch rings are well dressed, but 
the spandrels are of rubble only. Weale 
ascribes its long life to the fact that it was 
founded on rock and built with unusually 
good mortar. 

Other notable examples of this type are the 
bridge over the River Minho at Orense, Spain; 
that over the Nervia at Dolceacqua, Italy, and 
the Bridge of Martorelli near Barcelona, 
Spain. The latter has a main arch span of 41 
meters with a rise of 17.3 meters. It is believed 
that this bridge was originally built by the 
Romans, and restored by the Moors about 
1290 A. D. 

The Puente Major at Orense over the Minho 
is 400 meters long, belongs to the thirteenth 
century and is still in daily use. The large 
arch has a clear span of 48.5 meters and a 
height of 41 meters. This structure is credited 
to the Bishop Lorenzo. (Plates xxx, XxxI 
& XXXII.) 


Trezzo Arch 
During the fourteenth century, there was con- 
structed at Trezzo, in Italy, the longest span 
masonry arch ever attempted until modern 
times. This structure consisted of a single 
arch of 82/2 meters span (Hann & Hosking) 
across the river Adda, with a rise of 22.3 
meters, about the dimensions of the recently 
constructed Walnut Lane concrete arch in 


Philadelphia. It was completed in 1377 and 
served until destroyed during a war in the 
year 1416. Its arch was segmental in form and 
constructed of granite. It was never rebuilt. 


The Ponte Vecchio over the Arno—Florence 
This is one of the few remaining “‘Industrial 
Bridges,” as bridges containing shops along 
the sides of the roadway are sometimes called. 
The old London Bridge was a notable example 


of this type, and many of the older Paris . 


bridges had shops and dwellings constructed 
on their sides. The Ponte Vecchio belongs to 
the early fourteenth century and consists of 
three segmental arches of 27.8 to 31.4 meters 
span and 34.3 meters width and supports a 
covered gallery connecting the Pitti and the 
Ufizzi Palaces. This work is attributed to the 
architect Taddeo Gaddi, best known for his 
paintings and mosaics. (Plate XXXIII.) 


The Charles Bridge at Prague 
The Karlsbriicke over the Moldau at Prague 
was begun in 1357 by the Emperor Charles V 
and finally completed in 1503. It probably 
still holds the world’s record for length of 
time under construction, 146 years. It is 607 
meters in length, made up of 16 arches, the 


longest of which has a span of 22.7 meters. 


At one end of this bridge is a lofty and inter- 
esting medieval tower, while the parapet is 
ornamented with figures of the saints, one of 
which, near the center, is a statue of St. John 
Nepomuk, the patron saint of Bohemia, who, 
tradition says, was thrown off the bridge and 
drowned at the command of the King, to 
whom he refused to reveal the secrets of the 
confessional. (Plates XXXIV & XXXV.) 


[ 56 | 


ee a ee ee 


a 


Sa ee ————— ee ae ee ee ee ee, ee 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


At Pavia, Italy, there is a remarkable covered 
bridge over the Ticino, dating from 1351- 
1354, and consisting of seven pointed arches 
of brick, the arches having spans of about 
21.4 meters anda height of about 191% meters. 
The architect was the Governor, Gian Gal- 
eazzo Visconti, who also founded the Univer- 
sity of Milan and was responsible for much 
other contemporary 
(Plate XXXVI.) 


architectural work. 


Verona and Zaragossa 
The fifteenth century is almost devoid of any 
notable achievement in bridge construction, 
two of the few products of that century worthy 
of note being the bridge at Verona, Italy, 
known as the Ponte Della Pietra, and the 
Puente de Piedra over the Ebro at Zaragossa. 
(Plates XXXVI, XXXVIII, & XXXIX.) 

The former is partly Roman, restored in 
the fifteenth century, the restored parts easily 
recognized by their widely different character. 
The latter dates from 1437 and consists of 
seven arch spans, segmental, plain and mas- 
Sive, with very heavy piers of unequal width, 
some of them almost as wide as the arch span. 
The Ponte Della Pietra at Verona is much 
more refined in design, consisting of five 
arches, segmental, of variable span and car- 
ried upon piers, no two of which are alike in 
dimensions or detail. The spandrels over two 
of these piers are pierced by openings, one of 
which is a large circular opening, the most 
distinctive feature of the structure. 

A fine illustration of the Medieval spirit in 
bridge design is the Castelvecchio of Verona 
with its battlemented railing. (Plate XL.) 

This picturesque bridge was completed in 


the year 1356. The architects were probably 
Jean de Ferraro and Jacques de Gozzo. The 
arches are 24 meters to 48.7 meters span, and 
the roadway width 5.5 to 6.8 meters. 

We are now reaching the end of the medieval 
period in bridge construction, characterized 
mostly by rude, massive, brutal strength, but 
also boasting many structures of bold design, 
more bold in conception than the preceding 
Roman work, but much more crude in work- 
manship, and we are approaching the more 


refined and skilled period of the Renaissance 
and modern times. 


We leave these ancient structures with some 
regret and are reminded of the dialogue be- 
tween the ““Brigs of Ayr’ as related by the 
poet Burns, who puts into the mouth of the 
Auld Brig Sprite the prophecy that the newer 
one will succumb first to “flood and spate,” 
a prophecy that eventually came true. 

The Auld Brig is said to date from the reign 
of Alexander III, who died in 1286, and it 
therefore belongs to about the middle of the 
thirteenth century. The new Brig was built 
in 1788 and was destroyed by a flood in 1877 
and had to be rebuilt. Where can we find 
finer contempt of the new for the old or a 
better description of a river in flood than 
here? (Plate XL.) 


NEW BRIG 
Auld Vandal, ye but show your little mense, 


Just much about it wi’ your scanty sense; 
Will your poor, narrow foot-path of a street, 

Where twa wheelbarrows tremble when they meet, 
Your ruined, formless bulk of stone and lime, 

Compare wi’ bonny Brigs 0’ modern time? 
There’s men of taste wou’d tak the Ducat-Stream, 

Tho’ they should cast the vera sark and swim, 
Kre they would grate their feelings wi’ the view 

O’ sic an ugly, Gothic hulk as you. 


[ 57 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


AULD BRIG 

Conceited gowk! puffed up wi’ windy pride! 

This mony a year I’ve stood the flood an’ tide; 
And tho’ wi’ crazy eild I’m sair forfairn, 

I'll be a Brig when ye’re a shapeless cairn! 
As yet ye little ken about the matter, 

But twa-three winters will inform ye better. 
When heavy, dark, continued, a’-day rains, 

Wi’ deepening deluges o’er-flow the plains; 
When from the hills where springs the brawling Coil, 

Or stately Lugar’s mossy fountains boil, 
Or where the Greenock winds his moorland course 

Or haunted Garpal draws his feeble source, 
Arous’d by blust’ring winds an’ spotting thowes; 

In many a torrent down his snaw-broo rowes; 
While crashing ice, borne on the roaring spate, 

Sweeps dams, an’ mills, an’ Brigs, a’ to the gate; 
And from Glenbuck, down to the Ratton-key, 

Auld Ayr is just one lengthened, trembling sea; 
Then down ye'll hurl, deil nor ye never rise 

And dash the gumlie jaups up to the pouring skies. 
A lesson sadly teaching, to your cost, 

That Architecture’s noble art is lost! 


Note: 
Ducat-stream—a ford; mense—good manners; eild— 
age; cairn—wreck; rowes—rolls; the gate—road or way; 
Ratton-key—‘‘Rat-hole’’—a landing place at the river’s 
mouth. 


Another Scottish Bridge, although of a 
somewhat later date and also famed in song, 
is the “Auld Brig of Doon.” (Plate XL.) 

At Biddeford, England, an old bridge of 
uncertain age, but probably belonging to the 
fourteenth century, is of peculiar interest in 
that it presents the unusual spectacle of the 
use of the arch and beam principles combined 
in a single structure and material. The road- 
way is carried on masonry arches and the 
walks on stone lintels. (Plate xii.) This 
bridge formerly supported a chapel from 


which indulgences were sold by Grandison, 
Bishop of Exeter, in order to obtain funds to 
complete the structure. 


Medieval Engineering 
Following the fall of the Roman Empire 
and the decay of Roman civilization, engi- 
neering skill sank to a comparatively low 
level, and throughout the Middle Ages con- 
tinued to be almost non-existent. 

To be sure, wonderful churches and fine 
palaces were built during this period in 
Europe, but the skill displayed in their con- 
struction was the skill of the craftsman and 
not the careful, accurate planning of the engi- 
neer, as exhibited in the earlier Roman struc- 
tures and later in the eighteenth century. 

The civilization of the Middle Ages, based 
upon the feudal system, was not conducive 
to the development of engineering skill. The 
cities were more or less independent military 
strongholds, having little civil intercourse 
with each other and consequently small 
need of improved highways and the bridges 
that form a part thereof. Other branches of 
engineering were also neglected, and sani- 
tation was almost unknown. As a result there 
were frequent pestilences that decimated the 


population. 


On the other hand, slavery disappeared 
and such structures as were erected were the 
work of free men, a notable characteristic of 
the period being the development of the 
craftsmen’s guilds, which gradually became 
powerful organizations. 


[ 58 | 


ae Se a ae eee 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


VIHdIAGVIIHd ‘SOIGALS AVY WOM OLOHd 
8L11 GULAIdNOO—LAZANAd (LS LNOd—aAONVUA ‘NONDIAV—IXX ALWId 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


a Fie i ee 4 SS - —- a ee ee 


Sluvd ‘Sauda NIGGUNAN AM OLOHd 
AYOLINAD HINAALYNOA—LOT AHL YAAO “ADC AWLNATVA—HONVYA ‘SUOHVO—IIXX ULV Td 


[ 60 | 


—~ <.. oe e 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE XXIII—MONTAUBAN, FRANCE—PONT DES CONSULS OVER THE TARN—XIVTH CENTURY 
A MEDIEVAL BRIDGE OF BRICK 


PHOTO BY NEURDEIN FRERES, PARIS 


[61 ] 


BRIDGE 


ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE XXIV—LONDON—THE OLD LONDON BRIDGE—PHILIP OF COLECHURCH, ARCHITECT, 1209 


FROM A DRAWING BY H. W. BREWER, IN “OLD LONDON ILLUSTRATED” 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


MYOA MON ‘GOOMYAGNA ¥ GOOMUTGNA AG OLOHd 
06€L LTINGAY ‘ZIZl LHOAA—NILYVW NVS AG ALNANd—NIVdS ‘OGHTOL—AXX ALVI1d 


63 | 


| 


LURE 


ye 
eh 


HITEC 


‘ 
A 


AR( 


E 


aT 
I 


BRID¢ 


MYOX MAN ‘GOOMUTGND ¥F GOOMYGGND Ad OLOHd 


0661 LITNGAY ‘cIél LIING—NILYVIN NVS 4d ALNANd—NIVdS ‘OGHIOL—IAXX ALVId 


[ 64 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE XXVII—TOLEDO, SPAIN—PUENTE DE SAN MARTIN—DETAIL 
COPYRIGHT BY THE PUBLISHERS PHOTO SERVICE, NEW YORK 


E ARCHITECTURE 


“4 
x 


BRIUDC 


HUOA MAN ‘ADIAUAS OLOHd SUSHSIIANd AGT AALHOTUAdOD OLOHd 
SAIMA.LINAD HLLT GNV HL&l LTIOGAY—-VYVINVOTV AC ALNANd—NIVdS ‘OGATOL—INAXX ALVITd 


8 


@ 


ie 


a” 


[ 66 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


HOIAWHS OLOHd SUAHSITANd WOYA OLOHdA 


SHTYOLNAD HINAALNAAYS GNV HLINGALYTHL NI LW 
‘NVIWOU ATIVNIDIMO—HDUV NIVIN AO TIVLHAG—VYVINVOTV AG ALNANd—NIVdS ‘OGHIOL—XIXX 


ALV Id 


[ 67 | 


HITECTURE 


| 
| 


AR 


L 


BRIDGE 


MUOA MAN ‘AOIAUAS OLOHd SHYAHSITANd WOUdA OLOHd 


0€Zl ‘OZNAHOT dOHSIA OL GALIGAYD ‘OHNIW AHL YAAO ADGA LNAIONV—NIVdS “ASNHYO—XXX WLV Id 


BRIDGE’ ARCHITECTURE 


Tees: 
ake 


PLATE XXXI—DOLCEACQUA, ITALY—“THE DEVIL’S BRIDGE”—MEDIEVAL BRIDGE OVER THE NERVIA 
PHOTO BY UNDERWOOD & UNDERWOOD, NEW YORK 


[ 69 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


MUOK MAN ‘AOIAUGS OLOHd SUAHSITANd Ad OLOHA 
06zl LNOGV ‘SHOOW AG LTINGAY ‘NVNOY—AOGINE S.TIAAG AHLI—NIVdS ‘ITIAYOLYVIN—IIXXX FLVTd 


BRIDGE TARGET EC CU RE 


MYOA MAN SHOLAMAS OLOHd SUAMHSITANd WOU OLOHd 


AYOLINAD HINADALYNOA—LOALIHOYY ‘IdGV9 OAGGVL—OIHDDHA ALNOd—ATVLI ‘TONAYOTA—_UIXXX ULV Td 


BRIDGE ARCGHIT ROGEUEE 


AMONYASTYV YANO VUd—AIXXX HLVId 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE XXXV—PRAGUE—KARLSBRUCKE—THE POWDER TOWER 


PHOTO FROM THE DETROIT PUBLISHING CO. 


[73 ] 


BRIDGE AR@G@HITECTURE 


a et 


sitihy 


SONGUOTS ‘IOOUT “A AM OLOHd 
LOULIHOUV ‘TLNOOSIA OZZVATVD NVID YONYUAAOD—?SEI—ONIDLL TNS ALNOd—ATVLI ‘VIAVd—IAXXX BLVId 


[ 74 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


1IN0Ud “GH WOUd OLOHA 
AYQINGD HINKHLAA GNV NVINOU—VULAId WITH ALNOd—ATVLI ‘VNOUHA—TAXXX ALWId 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ae 


PLATE XXXVIII—VERONA, ITALY—PONTE DELLA PIETRA—DETAIL—ROMAN AND FIFTEENTH CENTURY 
PHOTO FROM UNDERWOOD & UNDERWOOD, NEW YORK 


[ 76 | 


TURE 


“ 
A 


BRIDGE ARCHITEC 


L€vVI—VuUddId Ad ALNANd—NIVdS VSSODVYUVZ—XIXXX ALVTd 


BRIDGE 


ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE XL—VERONA, ITALY—CASTELVECCHIO, DETAIL—1356—JEAN DE FERARE & JACQUES DE GOZZO, ARCHITECTS 


PHOTO FROM M. PAUL SE/JOURNE’ 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE XLI—SCOTLAND—THE TWA BRIGS O’AYR—THE NEW BRIG COMPLETED 1789, DESTROYED 1878, AND REBUILT 


THE AULD BRIG BUILT IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY—RESTORED 1912 


peo 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE XLII—SCOTLAND—THE AULD BRIG 0’ DOON 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE XLIII—BIDDEFORD, ENGLAND—OLD MASONRY BRIDGE—PROBABLY FOURTEENTH CENTURY 
PHOTO FROM WIDE WORLD PHOTOS 


[ 81 | 


IV. THE RENAISSANCE PERIOD 


The Renaissance, which characterized the art 
and architecture of the fifteenth and sixteenth 
centuries, seems to have had little effect upon 
bridge design in the fifteenth century, al- 
though during this period Brunellesco was 
building the Church of San Lorenzo and the 
Pitti Palace in Florence, and Alberti was con- 
structing the Palace Rucellai. Possibly the 
thought of the time did not extend to prob- 
lems of transportation, of which bridges are 
an important part. 

In the sixteenth century, however, the effect 
of the Renaissance is seen in many fine bridge 
structures, designed and built by some of the 
noted architects of the period, such as The 
Trinity Bridge at Florence, by B. Ammanati, 
the Rialto and The Bridge of Sighs at Venice, 
both by Antonio da Ponte, contemporary of 
Michael Angelo and of Palladio. 

Andrea Palladio was an Italian architect of 
the sixteenth century who designed many im- 
portant buildings, but who is best known as 
the author of a classic treatise on architecture. 


In this book we find the following inspiring — 


statement: “Bridges ought to have the self- 
same qualifications that we judge necessary 
in all other buildings, that they should be 
commodious, beautiful and lasting.”’ 


The Rialto Bridge, Venice 
The Ponte di Rialto, over the Grand Canal, 
completed in 1591, consists of a single seg- 
mental arch of 51.7 meters span and has a 


[8 


width of 23.6 meters. It is a covered bridge, 
carrying a seven-arched arcade, the center 
arch of the arcade larger and higher than the 
others, and protected by a gabled roof. (Plate 
XLIV.) 
Bridge of Sighs 

The Ponte di Sospire, or Bridge of Sighs, is so 
named because it connects the Ducal Palace, 
or Court of Justice, with the jail. It is doubt- 
less the most photographed and most painted 
bridge in all the world. It is a single arch of 
elliptical design, carrying a covered passage- 
way, highly ornamented with human heads 
and cartouches, and surmounted by a heavy 
arched parapet. It is generally conceded that 
neither of these structures are worthy exam- 
ples of Renaissance Art because they are in- 
ferior in design to contemporary work in 
buildings. The Bridge of Sighs was completed 
in 1597. (Plate XLv.) 


Trinity Bridge, Florence 

A better designed structure, perhaps, is the 
Trinity Bridge at Florence, built about 1570 
and consisting of three basket-handled arches 
with rather steep approaches and embellished 
with statues and carved keystones. The spans 
are 29.3 meters and 26.2 meters. Some author- 
ities have criticized the design of the piers of 
this bridge as being too thick in proportion 
to the rest of the structure. (Plate XLVI.) 

For a good example of renaissance archi- 
tecture in bridges, we must look to the 


| 


BRIDGE: ARCHITECTURE 


seventeenth century, a period that witnessed 
a distinct advance in pleasing design, al- 
though but little progress in the scientific 
principles involved. 

For instance, we have at Chatsworth, Eng- 
land, an ornamental little bridge built about 
1668 and consisting of three arch spans, ex- 
quisitely detailed, the cutwaters of the two 
center piers carrying statues and the parapet 
consisting of an open balustrade. Certainly 
this little bridge is an architectural gem, if 
not of much importance for purposes of trans- 
portation. Evidently, its charm is due largely 
to its surroundings, as it is part of a beautiful 
country seat. (Plate XLVI.) 

At Paris, however, are three notable bridges 
over the Seine belonging to this period, the 
Pont Neuf, the Pont Royal, and the Pont 
Marie, all serving as important links in heav- 
ily traveled arteries. 


The Pont Neuf, Paris 

The Pont Neuf was begun in 1578, the first 
stone being laid by Henry III. It was com- 
pleted in 1604 and is still called the “New 
Bridge.” Although this bridge has since that 
time been largely rebuilt, the restoration is an 
exact one. Its length is 353 meters and the 
width 23.6 meters. The spans of the twelve 
arches vary from 14 to 17.55 meters. The arch 
rings are three centered, nearly elliptical, and 
the piers have pointed cutwaters, surmounted 
by circular pilasters, which are carried up to 
the roadway, forming circular recesses in the 
foot-walks. The general effect of these details 
is to increase the appearance of massive con- 
struction. 

This monumental structure, “the Patri- 


arch of Paris bridges,’ was constructed by the 
architects Marchand and Androuet. (Plate 
JEN AN 4 


The Pont Royal, Paris 

The Pont Royal has five arches, the largest 
one with a span of 23/2 meters. The width is 
17 meters. It was completed in 1689 by the 
architects M. Mansart and J. Gabriel with 
the assistance of one Francois Romain from 
Holland, who is said to have been the first to 
employ open caissons or boxes, for construct- 
ing underwater foundations. “The bridge, 
while of the utmost simplicity in form, and 
without a vestige of decoration, nevertheless 
holds the attention of everyone whose eyes 
are open to the beauty of proportion.” (Emer- 
son and Gromort.) 

The arches are elliptical in form and the 
cutwaters are triangular, surmounted with 
pyramidal caps reaching almost to the coping. 
There are no recesses, however, in the road- 
way. (Plates XLIX & L.) 


The Pont Marie, Paris 


The Pont Marie was completed in 1635 and 
named after its builder, M. Christophe Marie, 
who completed it at his own expense, receiving 
as compensation therefor a grant of the un- 
built section of the island. (Isle de Paris.) It 
consists of five nearly semi-circular arches of 
cut stone. Two arches were washed out in 
1658, and except for this, the bridge has 
served traffic nearly 300 years without cessa- 
tion and with slight repairs. Its first stone 
was laid in 1614 by Louis xr and Marie de 
Medici. This bridge at one time supported 
houses on its sides, and it is recorded that 120 


[ 83 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


persons were drowned when two arches were 
destroyed in 1658, and all of the remaining 
houses were torn down in 1788. The width is 
23.6 meters. 

The bridges of Paris constitute a pleasing 
ensemble not equaled anywhere else in the 
world. This effect is due partly to the beauty 
of the structures themselves, but largely to 
the skill with which they have been made to 
fit into the surroundings, the approaching 
highways and the masonry quay walls. (Plates 
LI & LII.) 

Charles Mulford Robinson, in “‘Modern 
Civic Art,’ expresses this and other attributes 
and requirements of good bridge design so 
well that we take the liberty of making the 
following quotation from his writings: 

‘In the case of a stream, bridges must form 
a very important feature of the water-front 
development, merely considered architectur- 
ally and scenically. The bridges that spring 
from the quays of Paris seem an inseparable 
part of the construction. It happens that they 
are separable, and rarely coincident in date 
with it; but this does not appear. The bridge 
that begins and ends in the quay must harmo- 
nize with the quay; and the quay must provide, 
in broadened plaza and hospitality to con- 
verging streets, a bridge approach that shall 
be at once suitable and convenient for the 
travel. The surface appearance of the bridge 
belongs to another discussion. We are here 
considering the town’s water approach, where 
only a lateral view of the bridge is offered— 
the one view, however, that adequately gives 
the structure’s architectural value; and with 
its art importance alone is there now concern, 
engineering merit is assumed. 


‘Stone construction, or at least stone piers, 
are obviously invited strongly by the masonry 
of the embankment in order to secure har- 
mony. Beyond this, the charm of the bridge 
will lie mainly in long horizontal reaches. 
Perpendicular motives will not be necessary, 
and though it is quite the fashion, in the rare 
cases of an effort to make bridges monu- 
mental, to put a tower, or towers, in the 
centre, there is always a danger that these 
will have an isolated appearance. The place 
for the monumental treatment is at the point 
on the shore which is to be emphasized as the 
water gate; but the bridge, if designed con- 
scientiously as a work of art that shall be 
permanent, as cities go, and always very con- 
spicuous, may be made a thing of beauty with 
no such piling on of ornamentation. Of course 
at times the necessity for a centre draw justi- 
fies, and even requires, perpendicular motives; 
but these need not be deliberately invited to 
make the bridge imposing. If they are in- 
vited, the ideal place for them is at the struc- 
ture’s end. There they may easily emphasize 
the portal significance which all bridges have 
when the water which they span forms the 
boundary of the town. Interesting examples 
of this effect are offered by, for instance, the 


Charles Bridge at Prague (See Plates XXxIv 


& XXXV), and the railroad bridge at May- 
ence. (See Plate Gxxvut.) In fact, of the lat- 
ter it has been remarked that while the 
bridge is of the very ordinary truss type, the 
architects have saved it aesthetically by pro- 
viding ‘a handsome and imposing, not to say 
romantic, entrance, which not even railroad 
tracks can ruin.’ Further than that, it is an 
entrance, we may note, that has meaning. 


[ 84 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


“There are other principles which will be 
useful as guides in choosing bridge designs 
that are likely to please. Not only should the 
structure harmonize, as far as possible, with 
the quays and with its general setting, not 
only should its beauty be sought mainly in 
long horizontal reaches,—to the distrust of 
perpendicular effects, using the latter at the 
bridge ends if at all (when this is possible), 
but 1t must be remembered that the beauty of 
the bridge as a whole depends mostly on its 
main lines. Any attempt to deceive as to the 
nature and position of these by concealing 
them with ornament can only fail, being false 
to every principle of art. To beauty of form 
in these main lines, there must then be added 
Symmetry. 

“Tmagine a stone bridge of several arching 
spans. It is not enough that the lines of these 
spans be lovely. There must be symmetry be- 
tween the spans themselves, so that, for ex- 
ample, on either side of the center they shall 
be equal in number and size—an obvious 
matter, and yet one often ignored. And the 
bridge must harmonize with its natural set- 
ting and its purpose as well as with its con- 
structed terminal. This applies to the degree 
of its massiveness, to the character of the 
scenery, or, if it be in the midst of a city, to 
the style of the architecture amid which it 
stands. 

“Let it be recalled that while the purpose 
of the bridge is utilitarian there is no other 
structure in the city that has greater perma- 
nence, or as great a prominence, for good or 
ill. There is nothing that should be built with 
more consideration for the artistic result. In- 
deed, is it not true that a bridge across the 


Thames in London is upon the same plane of 
monumental and architectural importance as 
is St. Paul’s itself, and so makes demand for 
the like skill and taste to design and to em- 
bellish it? The Romans, who were the great 
bridge-builders of antiquity, had no higher 
title to bestow than the term ‘Pontifex Max- 
imus —greatest builder of bridges. And to- 
day, in an industrial age, it may be remarked, 
the bridge and viaduct are to us about what 
the town gate was to the builders of ancient 
times, so that it behooves us to demand not 
merely strength but dignity and a civic splen- 
dor, in their construction. Every city bridge 
is an opportunity; and as to the smaller towns, 
how charming a memorial a beautiful bridge 
might be! The triumphal arch can be made 
effective only at great expense. It is a vain- 
glorious type; while in the bridge the arch is 
at the service of humanity. 

“A Greek Sculptor charged his pupil with 
having richly ornamented a statue because he 
‘knew not how to make it beautiful.’ Beauty 
is dependent on a fineness of line, a chastity 
of form, the lack of which can be atoned for by 
no ornament that is superimposed, by no 
added decoration. ”’ 


Toulouse and Chatellerault, France 
There exists at Toulouse, France, a remark- 
able bridge over the river Garonne, begun in 
1543 and finally completed between 1626 and 
1632, the exact date being uncertain. The de- 
sign is attributed to Nicholas Bachelier and 
his son. The triumphal arch at one entrance 
was erected by the architect Mansart. 

There are seven elliptical arches, and small 
circular openings over all piers. It is supposed 


[ 85 | 


BRIDGE 


that the unfinished appearance of the vous- 
soirs over the spandrel openings is not inten- 
tional, but that the designer intended to 
carve a pattern thereon. All of these arches 
are enlarged upon the upstream side by a 
device known as the “‘corne de vache,” or cow- 
horned arch, consisting of flattening the curve 
at the face of the arch, thus forming a funnel- 
shaped opening at the arch face. This device 
is often met with in old French bridges. 

At Chatellerault, also, there is a somewhat 
similar structure consisting of nine arch spans 
over the River Vienne, completed in 1611, 
having been under construction forty-four 
years. The cornes de vache on this structure 
are very pronounced as is also the cornice. A 
beautiful entrance way at one end is a feature. 

This bridge is known as Le Pont des Con- 
suls and has an average span of 22 meters. It 
formerly had massive towers. 


ARCHITECTURE 


Both the Toulouse and Chatellerault Bridges 
are well illustrated by drawings in Emer- 
son and Gromort’s “Old Bridges of France.” 
(See Plate Liv for a good example of the use 
of the corne-de-vache, on the old bridge at 
Toulouse, France.) 


Engineering of the Renaissance 

A characteristic of the Renaissance period is 
the improvement in the construction of the 
substructures or foundations for bridges, as 
well as in the execution of the superstructure. 
This improvement consisted chiefly in the in- 
creasing use of wood piling and timber grill- 
ages, or platforms, for foundation purposes, 
already applied to many of the medieval 
structures, as, for instance, the old London 
Bridge, and in the better workmanship of the 
stone masons, evidencing an increasing skill 
on the part of the designers and workmen. 


[ 86 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


AONAUOTA ‘IN0Ud “GA Ad OLOHA 
LOALIHOYV “ALNOd Vd OINOLNVY—16SI—OLTVIY Id ALNOd—ADINGA—AITX FLV Id 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


“= 


“SZARSE 


a 
a 


)’ | ( sqvemeeeaneees 


il 


HITEC 


al 
4 


1597—ANTONIO DA PONTE, AR 


NAISSAN( 


PHOTO BY BROGI 


—RE 


== 


DI SOSPIR 


ITALY—PONTE 


XLV—VENICE, 


PLATE 


[ 88 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


AONGUOTA ‘TOOU “Gt WOW OLOHd 
02ST LOOPVY—LOULIBOYV TLYNVWWY “d—VLINIML VITAd ALNOd—ATVLI ‘AONHHOTA—IATX 


SE SS Bec ta 


ALV Id 


] 


89 


[ 


BRIDGE, ARCHITECTURE 


8991 LQNOPVY—HAONVSSIVNAYY—HLYOMSLVHD ‘GNVTONA—IIATX FLV Id 


Tr Tie 


PRO rire 


[ 90 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


sluvd ‘WNaASSVAGT Ad OLOHd 


] 


af 143 m Al 


if i ah 
| oe Gl 


SLOALIHOUV ‘LHNOYAONV ¥ GNVHOYVN—F09l GALATdNOD—ANHN LNOd AT—SIYVd—ITATX ALV Td 


* Foat Cl . 3 Bank j ’ 
— BavoURorRaeRe 


t Pe 


Fu a 


H 
ye 


&. 
be ee as me 


jeg as Hg 


mp 
sh Oe 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


SLOULTHDYV 


“THIUAVD f£ ¥ GUVSNVA "N—6891 GALA TAWOO—SAIMATIOL SUT LA TVAOYW LNOd AT—SIYVd—XITX ALVI1d 


7 =e ~ __. e Test r —— 7 oe : 
\ jpeaies ata ots Meath Seatehei hee ed ee te thy Rhee eh Ahad ot AAS thet fst 
= 


[ 92 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


SIuVd ‘YNASSVAGT AG OLOHA 
689I—SLOULIHOUV “THIYAVD ‘£f Y LYUVSNVIN ‘W—IVAOY LNOd WI—ADONVHA ‘STUVd—T ALV Id 


| 


93 


[ 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ns 
rt f 


1981—ATTIA Ad TALOH.T GNV SINOT “LS LNOd—SIYVd—IT ALVTd 


an 
Pe Tiere iin eee 
HAL i . 
SMC GAG bas asta cere 


Fe chose 

vey 8 #/ 

ee F ‘ 7 
' : 
pg 7 UGE 


sero iytt 
gpa 


6 it eee oe 


a 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


SHOdIYd HAO VNVYONVd—STYVd—IIT ALV Id 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


190ud “da WOud OLOHA 
0991 LIINGAY—OZZAW Id ALNOd—ATVLI ‘VSId—HIT ALV Td 


: 
£ 
b 
2 
? 
. 


si 


V. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 


We have seen that all through the middle 
ages and up to the eighteenth century, all 
notable bridges were designed by the priests 
and by architects. The professional engineer 
had not yet appeared in the picture, at least 
not as differentiated from the architect. In 
the eighteenth century, however, the engineer 
appeared on the scene, and a revolution in 
bridge construction took place, science be- 
coming a principal factor in design, without 
displacing art at that time but by displacing 
only ignorance and crudity. 

Chief among these men were Perronet in 
France, and Rennie in England, the first 
recognized professional bridge engineers, and 
both belonging to the last quarter of the 
eighteenth and first quarter of the nineteenth 
centuries. Perronet was responsible, among 
numerous projects, for the bridge over the 
Seine at Neuilly, a suburb of Paris, built 1768 
to 1773, and consisting of five arches, each 
with a span of 39 meters, and also for the 
Pont de la Concorde at Paris, built 1788. The 
famous Loire Bridge at Orleans was built by 
Perronet in collaboration with Hupeau, a 
contemporary engineer. (Brief biographies of 
Rennie and of Perronet may be found in 
Appendix C.) 

The Pont de la Concorde 
The Pont de la Concorde was the first bridge 
in Paris to be constructed with segmental 
arches. It has five spans with rises of only 
about one-eighth the opening—bold propor- 


tions for those days. It is considered to be 
Perronet’s masterpiece. One of its features is 
the use of an open balustrade, or railing, of 
stone posts and spindles instead of the usual 
solid parapet wall of its predecessors. This 
bridge is 15.59 meters wide between faces. The 
central arch has a span of 31.18 meters with 
a rise of 3.97 meters, the flanking arches being 
somewhat less. Perronet intended to use cyl- 
inder piers in the plan of the Pont de la Con- 
corde as he had already done in the design of 
a bridge at St. Maxena, but the approaching 
revolution led him to abandon this plan in 
favor of the straight pier in order to speed up 
the work. The cutwaters are about three- 
quarters attached circular columns, extended 
to the coping and supporting heavy masonry 
posts probably intended as bases for statuary, 
but never so used. There are no recesses in the 
foot walks. Perronet was the first director of 
the Ecole des Ponts, founded by Turdaine in 
1747, the first school of bridges. Perronet 
used the device known as the “‘corne-de-vache”’ 
(cow-horns) extensively and said of it: ““This 
arrangement facilitates the introducing of the 
water and gives more lightness and boldness 
of effect to the bridge.”’ The use of the flat 
segmental arch was another characteristic of 
his work. (Plate Lv.) 

Rennie is best known as the engineer for 
the New London Bridge, built in 1831, the 
Waterloo Bridge at London built in 1817, 
and the old Southwark Bridge of cast iron 


[ 97 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


arches, built in 1819. Rennie, however, built 
many other creditable structures in England 
and Scotland. A characteristic of his bridges 
is the use of the elliptical arch, in order to 
obtain a low, level roadway, while Perronet 
evidently preferred to use the flat segmental 
arch to obtain this same result. 

It will hardly be questioned that the semi- 
ellipse curve gives the more pleasing results, 
due largely to the fact that it presents to the 
eye a completed curve, whereas the segmental 
form is but part of a curve, it is incomplete. 
This likewise holds true for the semi-circle, 
which also gives the effect of a completed 
curve. Similarly, the simple mathematical 
curve has a charm not possessed by curves 
made up of a combination of different mathe- 
matical curves, such as we see in the three- 
centered and five-centered types, and in curves 
of varying radii, such as are commonly used 
today in the design of reinforced concrete 
bridges. When it-is necessary to use the seg- 
mental type of arch, as it often is, the designer 
should recognize the apparent necessity for 
skewbacks or abutments sufficiently massive 
to provide for the evident thrust, to the eye, 
of the uncompleted arch. In general, it may 
be stated as a cardinal principle of design that 
simple and complete curves are preferable for 
arch rings. 

These pioneer bridgeengineers, Perronet and 
Rennie, built structures that were much more 
beautiful, as well as more practicable, than any 
of their predecessors, in any age, whether ar- 
chitect or priest, Roman or Medieval. Pos- 
sibly this is due to the fact that engineering 
and architecture were still closely related, 
and these engineers were students of both. 


The Waterloo Bridge 

The Waterloo Bridge, designed by Rennie, 
consists of nine arch spans of elliptical shape, 
each span having a length of 120 feet and a 
rise of 34 feet. This bridge, originally called 
the ‘Strand Bridge,’ was re-named the Water- 
loo Bridge in honor of the battle of that 
name. The design, while universally admired 
for its beauty, has been the object of some 
criticism because of the use of columns at 
the piers, which are obviously superfluous 
ornamentation. 

Thomas Pope, writing in “A Treatise on 
Bridge Architecture,” thus pays his respects 
to this detail, perhaps somewhat unjustly, 
but not without point: 


“Dear little columns, what is’t ye do there? 
We know not, sir, unless to make you stare.” 


Apropos of the same problem, William 
Hosking wrote nearly a century ago, ““The 
usual materia architectoricae are entirely out 
of place, and out of character, in bridge com- 
positions. Columns and approximation to 
columnar form and proportion, pilasters, en- 
tablatures, niches, battlements, balustrades, 
towers and turrets, pinnacles and pediments, 
are gauds and devices, in the application of 
which to bridge composition the most emi- 
nent engineer-architects have failed to pro- 
duce anything but meanness or absurdity, or 
a combination of both. 

“Ifa work such as a bridge be well composed 
constructively, whatever may be the constit- 
uent material or materials employed, and 
whatever may be the kind of construction, it 
can hardly fail to be an agreeable object for 
it will certainly possess the essentials to beauty 


[ 98 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


in architectural composition, simplicity and 
harmony. The introduction of anything not 
necessary to the construction, the omission of 
what is requisite, or the substitution of a 
bad expedient for a good one, will assuredly 
tell injuriously upon the eye, how incompetent 
soever the observer may be to determine the 
cause of the defect, or even in what the defect 
may consist. It is impossible, therefore, to 
draw any line between the constructive and 
the decorative, or what is commonly termed 
the architectural composition of a bridge.” 
(Plate LVI.) 


The New London Bridge 
The New London Bridge comprises five ma- 
sonry arches, of elliptical shape, and is 926 
feet long. The roadway, originally but 35 
feet wide, was widened in 1905 to 65 feet and 


again in 1915 by the insertion of massive gran- 
ite corbels to a width of 76 feet. This last 
widening was carried out by Andrew Murray, 
architect, and G. F. W. Cruttwell, engineer. 
This bridge was and still is a masterpiece of 
simple, yet effective design, entirely devoid of 
the ornamentation for which the earlier 
Waterloo bridge has been criticized. The piers 
have circular cutwaters, slightly pointed, and 
the spandrels are built with coursed ashlar 
jointed precisely to the voussoirs of the arch 
rings, the entire effect being one of carefully 
executed design and workmanship. Recesses 
are provided over all piers. (Plate LVII.) 
These London bridges have served the heav- 
iest traffic for over a century and only lately 
have they shown signs of serious distress, due 
chiefly to deterioration of the timber grillages 
or platforms supported by piling upon which 


the piers are founded. The same weakness is 
causing concern for the safety of Sir Christofer 
Wren’s masterpiece, St. Paul’s Cathedral. 

Immediately after the great London fire 
this eminent architect, engineer and mathe- 
matician, collaborator with Sir Isaac Newton 
in the writing of ‘‘Principice,’’ planned, among 
other improvements, to rebuild the old Lon- 
don Bridge, a plan that was not carried out 
at that time. 

A picturesque bridge of the eighteenth cen- 
tury is the “Old Bridge” at Heidelberg, Ger- 
many, built 1786 to 1788 by the Elector 
Charles Theodore, whose statue, in company 
with one of the goddess Minerva, adorns the 
parapets. (Plate LVI.) 

At Chalon, France, there is a bridge of very 
unusual design, over the River Saone, known 
as the Pont St. Laurent, completed in 1782 
by Emilian Marie Gauthey, a noted French 
engineer and author of a book on bridge con- 
struction. The plan is unsymmetrical, com- 
prising four semi-circular arches and one seg- 
mental. The structure is ornamented with 
carvings in the spandrel recesses, and the 
arch rings are double and strongly marked, 
but the most remarkable detail is the exten- 
sion of the triangular breakwaters to a point 
well above the roadway level. Another fine 
bridge by Gauthey is that over the Saone at 
Chalon, known as the Pont des Echavannes. 
(See “Old Bridges of France” for many fine 
drawings of Gauthey’s work.) 

Among smaller structures built in this 
period, one of the most famous is the Pont- 
Y-Pridd, in Wales, completed by a William 
Edwards in 1750 after two attempts had 
failed. This belongs to the “Devil’s Bridge” 


22] 


BRIDGE 


type, having steep grades and narrow road- 
way. A peculiar feature is the provision of the 
openings in the spandrels. The span is 140 
feet. It is said that Edwards’ father was 
drowned at this point and that the building 
of the bridge was in fulfillment of a vow made 
by the son at that time. The more modern 
low grade bridge alongside this old structure 
affords a marked contrast between the old 
and the new. (Plate LIX.) 

Before leaving the eighteenth century we 
should not forget to mention the masonry 
arch bridges built by Smeaton at Perth, at 
Banff, and at Coldstream in Scotland, all 
quite similar in design to Rennie’s work and 
belonging to the latter part of the eighteenth 
century. 

An important factor in the construction of 
all masonry bridges in all times has been the 
quality of the cementing or jointing material 
used. As we have already noted, much of the 
old Roman work was laid up without mortar 
joints, dependence being placed upon careful 
dressing of the abutting beds of the stones, at 
which their workmen were very expert. The 
Romans, however, knew how to manufacture 
an excellent cement which they used freely 
in mortar and in concrete for much of their 


bridge construction. The art of making this - 


cement was lost for a thousand years during 
the middle or dark ages. 

Smeaton, the engineer in charge of the de- 
sign and construction of the Eddystone Light- 
house, quite a famous engineering feat in its 
day, conducted some studies and experiments 
in connection therewith which led to his re- 


ARCHITECTURE 


discovery of so-called Natural Cement in 1756. 

In 1824, another English engineer, Joseph 
Aspdin, made the first Portland Cement, dis- 
tinguished from the natural kind by being 
made from a mixture of raw materials, a dis- 
covery that made possible the modern con- 
crete bridges, which have almost revolution- 
ized the art of bridge architecture. 

An old saying of Scotch masons runs thus: 


“When a hundred years are past and gane, 
then gude mortar is grown to stane.” 


Highteenth Century Engineering 


The eighteenth century marked the re-birth 
of civil engineering as a science. After a dor- 
mant period covering nearly 1500 years, good 
roads began again to be constructed through- 
out Europe, improved harbors were built, 
water works and canals constructed and a 
start made at sanitation. Bridge construc- 
tion became more scientific, foundations were 
better prepared than ever before, the use of 
the open cofferdam for building in deep water 
was introduced and universally adopted, bet- 
ter cement was manufactured and all parts 
of the work show a marked improvement in 
workmanship, materials and tools. 

This was all coincident with a general ad- 
vance in scientific knowledge, on which the 
engineering profession is necessarily founded, 
and the establishment of schools for the 
training of scientists and engineers; develop- 
ments that made possible the tremendous 
material achievements of the nineteenth 
century. 


[ 100 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


eS ee ae 


PLATE LIV—TOULOUSE, FRANCE—“THE OLD BRIDGE’’—1542-1632 
ILLUSTRATING THE USE OF THE “CORNE-DE-VACHE” 


PHOTO FROM ‘‘GRANDES VOUTES”” SEJOURNE 


[ 101 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YWHHUNTIDNG 


“LHNOUNAd “W—28L1I—AGHYOONOD WI Ad LNOd WI—SIYVd—AT ALVI1d 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


LISI—HAANIONG ‘AINNAY NHOf—SHNVHL AHL HAAO ADGA OOTHHLYM—NOCNOT—IAT ALVId 


OE Wim 


alii): NNT Bil, 


103 | 


[ 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ae 
x 


Witt) him 


PLATE LVII—LONDON—NEW LONDON BRIDGE AS BUILT, 1831—JOHN RENNIE, ENGINEER 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE LVIII—HEIDELBERG, GERMANY—1788 


[ 105 ] 


BRIDGE AR CGHAT EGEURE 


a SS SS SERIE 


ee Gh, RT CD We 


PLATE LIX—WALES—THE PONT Y PRIDD—1750—WM. EDWARDS, BUILDER—SPAN 140 FEET 


[ 106 | 


VI. THE MODERN ERA 


The advent of the railroad era, dating from 
the completion of the Manchester and Liver- 
pool Railway by George Stevenson, about 
1830, marked the beginning of the modern 
era of bridge construction, and gave a tremen- 
dous impetus to the science thereof. Prior to 
this era, bridges were built more as a con- 
venience than as a necessity, as fords or ferries 
could be used by most of the vehicles then in 
use. The railroad locomotive, however, cannot 
ford a stream, and bridges became an abso- 
lute necessity. Unfortunately, the desire for 
both speed of construction and economy was 
so great that nearly all consideration of beauty 
was soon lost sight of, utility only receiving 
attention in the design of most railroad 


bridges, resulting in the disfiguration of the . 


landscape in many instances. In recent years, 
however, a reaction from this barbaric mate- 
rialism has set in and some of our most pleas- 
ing modern bridges are railroad structures. 

The requirements of the railroad era also 
caused a great change in the materials used 
in bridge construction, the need for long spans 
that could not be built with masonry arches 
leading to the rapid adoption of iron, both 
cast and wrought, and later of steel. These 
changes also resulted in the development of 
other types of bridges besides the arch; the 
iron beam or girder, the suspension bridge, the 
cantilever and the truss, including the trussed, 
or braced arch, came into use. In fact, modern 
bridge design makes free use of all of the five 


basic mechanical principles, the simple beam, 
the cantilever, the arch, the suspension cord, 
and the truss, whereas, prior to the last cen- 
tury, the arch was almost the only principle 
used for large bridges, the beam being used 
for very short and unimportant spans, and 
the suspension principle used only to a limited 
extent. 

Robert Stevenson, the designer of the rail- 
road locomotive, and engineer of many early 
railroads, was also the designer of three great 
bridges, and many lesser ones. These three 
bridges are the Britannia Bridge, carrying 
the Chester and Holyhead Railway over the 
Straits of Menai, in North Wales; the high 
level Bridge at Newcastle over the Tyne, and 
the Victoria Bridge over the St. Lawrence at 
Montreal, Canada, the superstructure of 
which has since been replaced by modern 
trusses. 


The Britannia Bridge 


The Britannia Bridge, Wales, completed in 
1850, is a wrought iron tubular girder, the 
trains passing through the tubes. It is 1511 
feet long, in one continuous tube, the longest 
single span being about 550 feet between sup- 
ports. The piers, built of sandstone faced with 
marble, were designed to carry suspension 
chains, which were included in the original 
design, but later omitted. Colossal lions 
euard the bridge heads, the work of Mr. John 
Thomas, an English sculptor. Originally it 


[ 107 ] 


BRIDGE 


was intended to place a colossal figure of 
Britannia over the center pier, but this was 
never done. The general effect is grand and 
simple, but marred by the unused provision 
in the towers for suspenders. The Britannia 
Bridge was the first large example of wrought 
iron construction, no cast iron being used. It 
contains 11,468 tons of wrought iron, a stu- 
pendous tonnage for those days. (Plate LX.) 


if 7 of 


The Bridge at Newcastle is 1372 feet long, 
composed of six major openings each 125 feet 
in the clear, spanned by iron bowstring girders 
carrying an upper and lower deck. Robert 
Stevenson was the first engineer to use this 
type of truss. 
Acar ane 

The Victoria Bridge was built to carry the 
Grand Trunk Railway over the St. Lawrence 
River near Montreal, at a point where the 
river is about 134 miles wide and was similar 
to the Britannia Bridge in design. 

Robert Stevenson, one of the greatest of 
the world’s engineers, largely responsible for 
the development of the railroad, was also one 
of the leading industrialists of his day, and 
his regard for his workmen is well illustrated 
by the remark he once made that “Skilled 


labor is the great fulerum upon which all our - 


social progress depends.’ He might well have 
included artistic progress, also. 

It is significant that at the beginning of 
the nineteenth century there was a_ wide- 
spread general interest in the building of 
iron bridges. Among others, the famous scep- 
tic, Tom Paine, was an ardent advocate of the 
iron bridge, and built, at his own expense, 
an experimental arch of 88!-foot span, as 


ARCHITECTURE 


a demonstration, and later was responsible 
for the design of an iron bridge over the Wear 
near Sunderland, constructed in 1796 and 
containing a span of 236 feet. Paine’s work 
was weak, however, and had to be rebuilt by 
Stevenson, not the only instance of correction, 
by the engineer, of the layman’s construc- 
tional errors. 

Prof. Pole in writing of the Britannia Bridge 
in 1866, closes his description with the follow- 
ing pertinent observation: 

‘The unfettered reign of private enterprise, 
which, under the dictatorship of the engineer, 
has of late so much prevailed in this country, 
has been no doubt a grand source of works of 
commercial utility, but it has doomed us to 
much bitter humiliation in matters of art 
and taste.”’ 

That reign has not yet ended but is begin- 
ning to yield to a new era which recognizes 
Art as a desirable partner of Science, in 
Bridges, as well as in other structures. 

An important factor in this change is the 
invention and development of reinforced con- 
crete, allowing a very much wider use of this 
plastic masonry material than was formerly 
possible. * 

About 1867, M. Jos. Monier began to use 


*Concrele is not a new material. It was known to and used 
by the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians and the Romans, who 
developed it to a high stale as a building material, as evidenced 
by the existing remains of many ancient aqueducts and build- 
ings. Perhaps the best known example of Roman conerete con- 
struction yel standing is the dome of the Pantheon at Rome, 
142 feet in diameter and about 1900 years old. 

The Roman builders used a mixture of lime rock and volcanic 
ash or Pozzulano in the manufacture of their cement, obtaining 
a material superior to most natural cements, but inferior to our 
modern Portland Cement, which was first made in England in 
1824, and received tts name because of its resemblance in color 
to Portland stone, a well-known building stone of that name. 


[ 108 ] 


BRIDGE 


metal reinforcement embedded in concrete in 
order to increase its resistance to tensile 
stresses, and about 1889 the principle was 
applied to bridge construction by M. Henne- 
bique in France, and shortly thereafter by 
Prof. Melanin Austria, and by Edwin Thacher 
and others in the United States. 

Much of the best recent work in bridge 
architecture has been done in this material, 
as will be shown later. First, however, we will 
consider some recent works in stone masonry. 


Stone Masonry Bridges of the 
Modern Period 


Many very important bridges have been con- 
structed of cut stone masonry in both Europe 
and America in the modern period, from 1800 
to 1925, in spite of the tremendous impetus 
given to the use of iron and steel during this 
time, often called the “Age of Steel,’ and also 
to the more recent impetus given to the use 
of concrete by the perfection of Portland 
Cement, leading to the frequent use of the 


99 


term “‘Age of Concrete,’ applied to recent 
construction. 

The greater beauty and longer life of stone 
masonry bridges, as compared to steel, and, 
at least until very recent years, to concrete, 
have earned for stone masonry a preference as 
the best material for use in the construction 
of permanent and monumental structures. 
Even today many engineers consider that 
concrete has not yet definitely proven that it 
is as permanent a material as natural stone, 
and it is generally conceded that a concrete 
has not yet been developed that admits of as 
satisfactory a surface treatment as may be 
obtained by the use of natural stones, al- 


ARCHITECTURE 


though it must be admitted that much prog- 
ress is being made in this respect. 

Among modern European stone bridges, 
the following are selected as worthy of especial 
note: 

At Paris, over the River Seine, the Pont de 
la Archeveche, the Pont Notre Dame, the 
Pont Au Change and the Pont Louis Phil- 
lippe. 

At Plauen, the bridge over the Syra River; 
at Luxemburg, the Adolphe Bridge; at Pisa, 
the Ponte Solferino by Vincenzo Micheli, and 
at Geneva, the Coulouvrenier Bridge over the 
Rhone. 

Among American stone structures, built 
during the last century, the following are 
perhaps most notable: 

The Harlem River Aqueduct Bridge at New 
York, the Cabin John Aqueduct at Washing- 
ton, the bridge over the Connecticut River at 
Hartford, Conn., and ‘the viaduct of the 
Pennsylvania Railroad over the Susquehanna 
River near Harrisburg, Pa. 


Modern Masonry Bridges over the 
River Seine at Paris 


(Data obtained largely from the description of “The Bridges of 
Paris” by Carl L. Rimmele in The Military Engineer) 


The Pont de la Archeveche, completed in 1828, 
is composed of three segmental arches of low 
rise as compared with the span. The central 
arch has a span of 17 meters, with a rise of 
2.31 meters and the others 15 meters span 
and 1.91 meters rise. The width is 11 meters. 
The design is extremely plain and devoid of 
ornamentation. The railing is of metal with 
top and bottom rails and triangular pattern 
of webbing, very light and simple. (Plate 
gab 


[ 109 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


The Pont Notre Dame as it exists today was 
rebuilt in 1852 on the foundations of an older 
structure built in 1499-1507 by the Joconde 
Brothers, an Italian religious organization. 
In the rebuilding of this bridge, elliptical 
arches were employed for the first time in 
Paris bridges. There are five spans, varying 
slightly from 18.76 meters to 17.40 meters in 
length, and with a rise of from 7.5 to 7.25 
meters. The width is 21 meters over all. The 
stone masonry of the old bridge was used in 
rebuilding the new. The old bridge was 
flanked with buildings on each side and was 
the property of the king, who collected tolls. 
Similar conditions prevailed at all of the five 
bridges over the Seine in Paris existing in the 
sixteenth century. 

Is it not possible that the custom of build- 
ing dwelling houses on bridges so prevalent 
during the Middle Ages was due to the in- 
fluence of a natural desire to live over water, 
inherited from our remote European ances- 
tors, the Lake Dwellers, or was it simply a 
matter of business, the density of travel mak- 
ing the sites valuable for shops, and the 
dwellings being connected with shops, as was 
the custom? In modern times, it has been 
found that such sites are not, as a rule, de- 


sirable for business, due to the lack of room. 


and the very congestion of travel, which is 
required by the modern spirit to ““move on”’ 
and not stop for shopping or gossip. 

The Pont Au Change, rebuilt in 1858 to 1860, 
also replaced an older bridge; in fact, a bridge 
has existed at this site since before the begin- 
ning of the Christian Era. The old bridge con- 
sisted of six spans, while the new bridge is 


composed of but three elliptical arches, each 
with 31.60 meters span and 7.22 meters rise. 
This bridge has the unusual width of 30 
meters between parapets. In this work also, 
stone from the ancient structure was used in 
the new work. The cutwaters of the piers are 
circular and carried up to the extradosal lines, 
above which is placed a large letter ““N”’ en- 
circled by a wreath, the emblem of Napoleon. 
There is no other ornamentation. The para- 
pets are of the post and spindle type. (Plate 
LAT) 

The Pont Louis Phillipe, built 1860 to 1862, 
is also composed of three elliptical arch spans, 
quite similar in dimensions to those of the 
Pont Au Change, the center span having a 
length of 32 meters and the side spans 30, 
with rise of 8.25 meters and 7.73 meters re- 
spectively. The Pont Au Change is supposed 
to occupy the site of the Grand Pont of 
Julius Ceasar’s time. The only other Paris 
bridge existing at this ancient date was the 
Little Pont, as the more modern structure is 
still called. 

Other bridges at Paris belonging to the last 
century are the Pont St. Michel, the Pont des 
Invalides, the Pont de l’Alma, the latter 
named in honor of the victory of Alma during 
the Crimean War in 1854. There are four 
figures on the pier heads of the Pont del’ Alma, 
representing four contemporary types of 
French soldiers, a kind of applied ornamenta- 
tion that would seem to be proper since it 
conveys a significance in harmony with the 
memorial character of the bridge itself. This 
work, executed under the direction of M. de 
Lagalisserie, engineer, in 1855, comprises 


[ 110 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


arches of 43 meters span and a width of 20 
meters. (Plate LXIII.) 

Also named for a military victory are the 
Pont d’Austerlitz, commemorating the vic- 
tory of Napoleon over the Austrians, con- 
structed in 1801 to 1805, rebuilt in 1854 and 
widened in 1884; and the Pont d’Iena, named 
for the French victory over Prussia at lena- 
Auerstadt in 1806. 


Tron and Steel Bridges at Paris 


Paris also boasts, in addition to her wonder- 
ful masonry arch bridges, some arch bridges 
of cast iron notable for their beauty. Among 
these is the widened Pont Tournelle. The 
original arches are of masonry, dating back 
to 1654, and the roadway was widened in 1845 
by addition of metallic arches on each side. 
Strange to say, the effect is not considered 
bad, a tribute to the skill of the designers. 

The Pont de Carrousel is, perhaps, the 
best known of the metallic arch bridges of 
Paris. It consists of three spans of 47 meters 
length and a rise of one-tenth of this amount. 
The arch ribs are built up of wood and cast 
iron combined and the spandrels have circular 
iron rings diminishing in size toward the 
crown. From an engineering viewpoint, this 
bridge is not satisfactory and the architec- 
tural value is not much better. The deck is 
12 meters wide. 

The Pont d’Arcole, built in 1854, has a 
single wrought iron arch span of 80 meters 
length. 

The Pont Alexandre III, completed in 1900 
after plans by MM. Resal and Alby, is the 
most ornate of the bridges of Paris, and con- 
sists of a single metallic arch of 109 meters 


span and only 6.28 meters rise, a very extreme 
ratio of rise to span of 1/17. Somewhat lavish 
use of cast Iron ornamentation on the exterior 
ribs and spandrels, huge masonry pylons at 
the corners and statuary surmounting second- 
ary posts, constitute the elaborate decorative 
scheme. It is 40 meters wide. (Plate LXIV.) 
A bridge at Plauen over the Syra River is 
the longest single span stone masonry arch 
in the world, having a clear span of 90 meters 
and a rise of 17 meters. The engineer in charge 
of this project was M. C. H. Leibold and the 
work was completed in 1903. It is called the 
Frederic August Bridge and consists of a 
single mammoth arch of the basket-handle 
curve type, with openings in the spandrels 
over the skewbacks and a simple arcade sup- 
porting the walks. The deck comprises a road- 
way 11 meters wide and two walks each 3 
meters wide. Dentils are used under the cop- 
ing, which supports a simple stone parapet. 
(Plate LXXVII.) 
The Luxemburg Bridge is considered to be a 
handsomer structure than that of Plauen, 
and contains an arch nearly as long, 84.5 
meters, and with the much greater height of 
41.75 meters. This bridge, completed in 1903, 
spans the Petrusse River and consists of a 
single arch composed of two parallel stone 
masonry ribs, supporting four spandrel arches 
on each side of the center and flanked by two 
full centered arches, one on each side of the 
main span. The main arch ribs, for a short 
distance up from the skewbacks, are built 
of rough rock-faced masonry, which gives the 
effect of more massive skewbacks, against 


[111] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


which the main arch rings of smooth-faced 
stone abut. The side spans each have 21.6 
meters opening, and the spandrel arches 5.4 
meters. The parapets are of simple spindle 
design, enclosing a deck having a clear width 
of 16 meters, comprising an 8 meter roadway, 
a railway track, traction track and two walks. 
A cartouche, the coat-of-arms of the Grand 
Duke of Luxemburg, ornaments the keystone. 
The facing material is stone masonry, but the 
floor is constructed of reinforced concrete. 
The engineer in charge of the design and the 
construction of this beautiful and imposing 
structure was M. Séjourné, Ingenieur en Chef 
des Ponts et Chausses of France, whois also the 
author of one of the most important modern 
books on masonry arches—‘‘Grandes Voutes.””’ 
(Plate LXVII.) 
A beautiful bridge at Pisa, Italy, known as 
the Ponte Solferino, completed in 1875 by 
the architect Vincenzo Micheli, consists of 
three elliptic arches delicately moulded and 
supported on piers having circular cutwaters. 
The only attempt at ornamentation consists 
of the carved keystones, cartouches in the 
panels over the piers and statues at the four 
large end posts of the post and spindle railing. 
(Plate LXVIII.) 
The Coulouvrenier Bridge at Geneva, com- 
pleted in 1895, is a fine example of good 
modern bridge construction, not nearly so 
delicately beautiful as the Ponte Solferino, but 
more massive. There are two main spans of 
segmental arches, one over a river and the 
other over a canal. Between them are two 
piers connected by a single semicircular arch 


of short span. Surmounting these two piers 
are slender, high pylons, supported on carved 
brackets projecting from the spandrels. This 
central group forms the principal architec- 
tural feature of the bridge and is very effec- 
tive. The arch rings are of rock-faced masonry, 
as are also the piers up to the brackets. The 
main arches have a clear span of 40 meters and 
the center arch an opening of 108 meters. The 
deck comprises a single roadway, 11 meters 
wide, and two walks with a clear width of 3.5 
meters each. The balustrades are of granite, 
of the “‘post and spindle” type. Although this 
bridge is faced throughout with stone, the 
body of the main arches and the roadway are 
of concrete. The engineer was M. Constant 
Butticaz, and the consulting architect, M. 
Bonvier. (Plate LXIX.) 


7 ty 


The Hannibal Bridge over the Vulturne in 
Italy is so named because it occupies the site 
of an ancient structure supposed to have been 
built by Hannibal. The modern structure was 
completed in 1870, and consists of a single 
segmental arch of 55 meters span, flanked 
with circular openings in the abutments, one 
on each side, of 9.71 meters span. The extra- 
dosal rings of the arches, the copings of the 
circular cutwaters of the piers, and the main 
copings, all have heavy dentils which give a 
very unusual character to the bridge. The 
engineer was M. Giustino Fiocca. A peculi- 
arity of this bridge and some others of the 
more recent Italian bridges consists in the 
use of a segmental ring for the exposed faces 
of the arch, the main section of which is 
elliptical. (Plate LXX11.) 


7 


At Kew, England, is a three-span arch bridge 


[112 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


over the Thames, built in 1903 and named the 
Edward the Seventh Bridge. The arches are 
elliptical in section, 133 feet in span, con- 
structed of large voussoirs, have spandrels 
flush with the faces of the arch rings and no 
ornamentation, except the large carved car- 
touches over the piers. The curve of the ellipse 
is carried down the sides of the piers, giving 
the latter a very heavy, but pleasing, appear- 
ance. This is a simple detail that might often 
be employed profitably, although the cutting 
of the voussoirs requires considerable skill in 
stereotomy. The engineer was Sir John Wolfe 
Barry, K. C. B. (Plate LXXIr.) 

Another beautiful French structure is the Pont 
Antoinette over the Agout at Tarn, built in 
1884 for railroad purposes and consisting of 
a simple arch span of 50 meters with five full- 
centered arches each side of the center, the 
main arch springing from between two piers 
of these smaller arches. The charm of this 
bridge is due partly to the use of differently 
colored stone, a light colored stone for the 
main arch ring, the coping and retaining 
walls, while the balance is of a much darker 
stone, accentuating the main features. The 
engineer in charge was M. Robaglia. (Plate 
EXXIv:) 

In Austria, at Vorailberg, a railroad arch 
bridge spans a deep gorge with a single mas- 
sive arch ring of uniform thickness, support- 
ing four spandrel arches on each side. The 
pleasing effect of this bridge is obtained by 
the use of large stones of irregular size and 
rough rock-faced masonry, all suggestive of 
rugged strength and harmonizing with the 
rugged character of the surrounding land- 


scape. The span is only 41 meters and the 
only parapet a pipe railing. The design is 
typical of many others on Austrian railways. 
(Plate LXXV.) 

At Orleans, France, over the Loire, is another 
railway bridge, built in 1906, consisting of 
seven equal spans of 43.85 meters each, of 
open spandrel design similar to many other 
structures, but distinguished by the use of 
brick for the spandrel walls, and also for the 
panels of the parapets. The contrast of color 
is sharp, much more so than in the case of the 
Pont Antoinette. The engineer in charge was 
M. Renardier. (Plate LXXVI.) 

A bridge over the Moselle, in Lorraine, com- 
pleted in 1905, embraces some features of 
architectural design worthy of note. This 
structure is of the common open spandrel, 
segmental arch type, the distinctive features 
being the treatment of the pilasters over the 
piers with dressed stone edges and rock-faced 
panels and the use of a very simple metal 
railing with double posts over all piers and 
columns. The engineer was M. Blumhardt. 
(Plate LXXVI.) 

The Séjourné Bridge over the Pedrouse, 
named in honor of its designer, M. Paul Sé- 
journé, consists of masonry arches 65.2 meters 
high and was built in 1911. It is remarkable 
for its great height. (Plate LXV1.) 

The Puente Nuevo at Ronda, Spain, a high 
masonry arch over a deep gorge, designed by 
Jose Martin Aldeguela, is a unique structure, 
the abutments being carried up the sides of 


[113] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


the gorge in perpendicular lines. The archi- 
tect was killed by a fall from his work while 
under construction. Older Roman and Moor- 
ish bridges cross this gorge at lower levels. 
(Plate LXXIX.) 

“The High Bridge’ at New York was built 
in 1837 to 1842 as an aqueduct for the Croton 
water supply system of the city under the 
direction of John B. Jervis, engineer. It con- 
sists of 16 full-centered (semi-circular) arches 
of 80 feet span each, on high piers. The total 
length is 1460 feet and the height above the 
river is 116 feet. The design is simple, the 
principal charm of the structure lying in its 
proportions and in the fine workmanship of 
its dressed stone masonry. 

It is now (1927) found necessary to remove 
some of the piers of this bridge on account of 
interference with navigation of the river, an 
alteration which it is hoped will not mar its 
beauty. (Plate LXXx.) 

The Cabin John Arch, near Washington, D.C., 
was completed in 1864 by General Meigs, 
U.S. A. This structure is part of the water 
system of Washington, D. C., and consists of 
a single arch of 220 feet opening and 101 feet 


rise. It is chiefly noted for its size, although a. 


much more distinctive feature is the use of a 
double arch ring, the inner or lower ring of 
dressed stone, and an upper or extradosal 
ring of rock-faced stone. (Plate LXXXI.) 

One of the most beautiful structures in Amer- 
ica is a bridge over the Connecticut River at 
Hartford, Connecticut, completed in 1908, 
and known as the Memorial Bridge. The 


length of this bridge is 1192 feet and its 
width is 82 feet. The nine arches have an 
opening of 119 feet each, are elliptical in shape, 
built of cut granite, smooth faced. The piers 
have triangular cutwaters, the spandrels are 
flush with the faces of the arch rings and the 
coping is a simple projecting band of granite 
unrelieved by dentils or otherwise. The para- 
pet is a solid wall, capped with a plain coping. 
There are two enlarged piers with projecting 
bays. Extreme simplicity is the keynote of 
this bridge, yet the effect is very pleasing and 
possibly unexcelled by any similar structure. 
One cannot study the architecture of the 
masonry bridge without being impressed with 
the great beauty of the elliptic curve, when 
used for such low-lying structures as this. 
The design is credited to Mr. A. P. Boller, 
consulting engineer, in collaboration with 
Mr. E. D. Graves, chief engineer, and Mr. 
E. M. Wheelwright, consulting architect. 
(Plate LXXXII.) 


American Railway Stone Arches 


Many fine bridges of stone masonry have 
been built in America by the various rail- 
roads, such as the bridge over the Susque- 
hanna River near Harrisburg, Pa., on the 
Pennsylvania Railroad, consisting of a long 
series of equal span, semicircular, solid span- 
drel arches of sandstone. (Plate LXXXIII.) 

On the lines of the New York Central 
Railroad, especially that part formerly known 


-as the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern 


Railway, are many fine examples of cut-stone 
masonry arches, typical of which are the 
bridges over Black River, at Elyria, and at 
Berea, Ohio, both high arches having solid 


[114] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


masonry spandrels with no earth fill. These 
bridges were built of the famous Berea 
Sandstone, found in northern Ohio, and ex- 
tensively used for bridge construction, as well 
as for buildings. 

At Elyria, Ohio, there is also an unusually 
flat stone highway arch, having a rise of about 
28 feet, for a span of 155 feet. It was built in 
1886 of Berea Sandstone, about the same 
time that the railway bridges mentioned were 
constructed. (Plates LXXXIV & LXXXV.) 


At Cleveland, Ohio, are some unusual ma- 
sonry bridges, built about 1900 after designs 
by Architect C. F. Schweinfurth and carrying 
city streets over the Rockefeller Parkway. The 
material is sandstone for the facing, although 
some of the arches have rings of brick. The 
designs are quite unique, a feature being the 
omission of the usual copings and parapets. 
(Plates LXXXVI & LXXXVII.) 


Timber Bridges 
lif the early decades of the nineteenth century, 
many timber arch bridges were built in the 
United States. Timber was plentiful and there- 


fore this type of structure was economical in | 


first cost, and, indeed, many of them served 
nearly a century of usefulness. Little can be 
claimed for them as objects of beauty, yet 
some of them possessed a picturesque charm. 
Among the more famous was that over the 
Delaware River at Trenton, consisting of 203- 
foot spans, built in 1804, and replaced in 1875 
by an uninteresting steel truss bridge. The 
Collossus Bridge over the Schuylkill at Phila- 
delphia, quite noted at one time for its clear 
span of 340 feet and a rise of only 38 feet, was 
built in 1812 and destroyed by fire in 1838, a 
fate that befell many, if not most of these 
timber structures. 

The so-called “Y” Bridge at Zanesville, 
Ohio, located at the junction of the Mus- 
kingum and Licking Rivers, another famous 
timber structure, was built about 1820 and 
replaced with a concrete bridge in 1900, serv- 
ing this community faithfully for eighty years. 
The most ambitious timber arch bridge ever 
attempted, however, was built near Baden, 
Germany, in 1760 by the Brothers Gruben- 
man, noted bridge builders of that day. This 
structure boasted the unprecedented length 
of 360 feet in a single span. (Plate LXXXIXx.) 


[115 ] 


TURE 


5 el 


HITEC 


aI 
A 


AR( 


E 


‘ 
I 


BRID(¢ 


MUOA MAN ‘AOTAUTS OLOHd SUSHSITANd WOUd OLOHA 
YAANIONGA “NOSNAADLS LYAGOU—0S8I—ADCIYA HVINGAL VINNVLINVE—SHTIVM—XT1 ALVId 


[ 116 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


Sek 


a 


SluVd ‘UNASSVAAT AP OLOHA 
8c8L LILNA—AHOHAKHOUV VWI Ad LNOd AT—SINVd—IXxl ALVId 


FAAS 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


ae 


pert 


SIuvd ‘UNASSVAVI Ad OLOHd 


0981 LIINA—HONVHO OV LNOd WI—SIYVd—IIXT ALVId 


{OE 


[ 118 ] 


mI ae 


ee | 


oon Spire 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE LXIII—PARIS—PONT DE L’ALMA—1860 


EkLos| 


BRIDGE ARGHITECTURE 


0061 CHULA Td NOO—SYUAANIONY ‘AGTV ¥ TVSHY WA—II SYGNVXATY LNOd—SIMVd—AIXT ALV Id 


w 


Ai 


f 


i} 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


S98I—SHAANIONG “ADVNALAG-SYATIIA ¥ NIMANS ‘AYYAId WOSSVE WA—TINALAV.d 


LINOd—Slu¥Vd—AX'T 


ALV Id 


[121] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ASNOUdHd AHL YHAO HOGIYA—AONVYA—IAXT ALVId 


[ 122 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


€061—YHANTO 


‘ 


No ‘AN 


YOOLaS “W 


ASSQULAd AHL YAAO AHdTOGV LNOd—OYuNdNaXNT 


—HAXT ALVId 


123 ] 


| 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


IMVNITV AM OLOHd 
$28I—LOALIHOUV ‘TIAHOIN OZNHONIA—ONIYAATIOS ALNOd—ATVLI ‘VSId—IIAXT ALWId 


[124 ] 


TURE 


C 


HITE 


oO 
A 


ARC 


BRIDGE 


LOALIHDYY DNILTOSNOD ‘YHIANOd “N—YAANDONG ‘ZVOILLOAG LNVLSNOD “IW 
c68I—ANOHY AHL YAAO YHINAYANOTOAOD VI Ad LNOd—ANVTYAZLIMS ‘VAHNAD—XIXT ALVId 


[ eeeenereten ree erecta cea 


[ 125 


mT aT 


tn Didnt, ed 


r sl 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ANUNOL AS WOUT OLOHd 


16Ll LING 
HAC TH AHL LHAOVS Ad Ad GNOOYWOHHOU NT ADGIMA—LAODV AHL WAAO SHOCINYA—AONVUA ‘UAVAVI-XX1 ALY Id 


6 | 


[ 12 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


NVdS SYU.LAIN 


jANYNOL AS TAVd “W WOW OLOHd 


¢19—?88I_YHHNIONA VITOVEOY W—LAOOV.T YM 


“MAVAVT 


ad LNOd—aONVYA “YAVAVI—IXXT ALVId 


127 | 


[ 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


jANUNOL AS TAVd “W WOU OLOHA 
YHANIONG “VOOOIT ONLLSOID (W—028I—-ANYALINA AHL YAAO ADGINE TVSINNVH AHL—XIVLI—IIXXT ALVId 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ADIAUAS OLOHd SUMHSITANd WOUA OLOHA 
YHANIONA ‘AYHVE AAVTIOM NHOL YIS—S06I—SHNVH.L AHL YAAO ADAYA TA GHYVMGH—ANVTONG ‘MAM—HITXXT 


[ 129 ] 


TURE 


ARCHITEC 


E 


~ 
vf 


BRID¢ 


JANUNOL AS 1NVd "W WOUdA OLOH 
V88I—YAANIONG “VITOVEOU “(N—LONODV.1T HAS ALLANIOLNVY LNOd—dONVYA ‘NYUVL—AIXX' ALVId 


[ 130 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE LXXV—VORAILBERG, AUSTRIA—THE WALDLITOBEL BRIDGE—1884 


PHOTO BY M. M. WURTHE & SONS, SALSBURG 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


JANUNOL, AS TAVd “W WOUd OLOHA 
YAANIONA ‘YAIGUVNAY “W—906l LTING—aUIOT AHL YAAO ANGINA AVM TIVU—AONVUA ‘SNVATHO—IAXXT ALVId 


$ wt aaieaniinseeileaiamiion aS eas 6| | le GE secees 


. | 4 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ae yews a 


PLATE LXXVIIL—PLAUEN, FREDERIC AUGUST BRIDGE OVER THE SYRA RIVER—1905 
SPAN, 90 METERS—CG. H. LEIBOLD, ENGINEER 


[133] 


BRIDGE -ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE LXXIX—RONDA, .SPAIN—PUENTE NUEVO DEL TAJO DE RONDA—EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 
JOSE MARTIN ALDEGUELA, ARCHITECT 
PHOTO COPYRIGHT BY N. PORTUGAL, MADRID 


[134 | 


ARGHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


YHANI 


ye 


SI 


‘OO ONIHSITANd LIOVLAG AHL AM GHLHOIMAdOD OLOHd 


AYae “H NHOf—<zb8I—HDCIYd HOIA—WYOA MHN—XXXT ALVId 


[ 135 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


‘OOD ONIHSIIANd LIOMLAG AHL AM GALHOIYAdOD OLOHd 
Ladd 0c ‘NVdS—YAANIONG “V 'S ‘1 ‘SOIMW ‘NAD—P98I—HOUV NHOL NIGVO—D ‘d ‘NOLONIHSVM—IXXX'T ALV Id 


[ 136 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


VadOdNnHD ¥F NHAVH AWG OLOHd 


LOALIHOYY “LHDTYUMTAAHM ‘WA SYaaANDSNG ASTHO ‘SHAVYD ‘O NIMC ‘YHHNIONA ONILTOSNOD “YHTION * 
806I—YHAIY LADILOANNOD AHL YAAO HOGA TVIMONAIN—NNOD ‘CYO4LYVH—IIXXXT ALVTd 


137 | 


[ 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE LXXXIII 


HARRISBURG, PA.—MASONRY VIADUCT OF PENNSYLVANIA RATLROAD OVER THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 


PHOTO FROM RAU STUDIOS, PHILADELPHIA 


[ 138 ] 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


088. LNOAV—H YH IVYLNAD MYHOA MAN—SHHOYV J 


KUNOSVIW GITOS—OTHO “VINATH—AIXXXT ALV Id 


[139%] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


0881 LNOUV— HY “UY TVULNAD MYOA MAN—AOCINA AVMTIVY AYNOSVW—OIHO ‘VANSA—AXXXT ALVId 


So Se Sanna 


[ 140 ] 


BRIDGE ARGHITECTURE 


Z06I—LOG.LIHDUV ‘HLYOANIAMHDS “A O—AVMMYVd HHAO ADGA —OIHO ‘GNVTIAANTO—IAXXXT ALVTd 


] 


[141 


BRIDGE ARCHITEQTURE 


0061 LIN 
LOA.LIBOYY SHLYDANIA MHDS “4d “O—-AVMMYVd YATIGAAMOOU YAAO ADGTHYA—OIHO ‘GNVIAAATO—IIAXXXI ALV1d 


142 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


IVVNITV “GH AW OLOHd 


SYHHANIDNA ISSOWAG YUNA FY ILVIYdVO “LI WTHONVINNY OFYOLLIA HLNOd—AWNOY—INAXXXT ALVId 


eB 


/ te é P; > i 


s “eae 


Th eh kaa ok ok at kh thal ad sll a ee ee ee Pik th salt hth th ah sah kt lt kkk a ih ahh lh at a sek ah ah ak ahah 


De i aid ah ed ad : i ; ee id ated td j 


| 
Vie 


j — 


rd sy mon id ee 
neti li cblaececemnemn are 


nat 
sibanceepise eh, 


{ae 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


“M ‘f'M AM OLOHd 


006 GHOVIdHY—0e8T LIN 
SHUHATHY ONIMOIT ¥ WOONTHSOW AHL YAAO HDCT YAAWILL GHYAAOO—OIHO “A TIIASHNVZ—XIXXX1 DLV 1d 


[ 144 ] 


IRON AND STEEL ARCH BRIDGES 


HE Railroad Age, starting with tremen- 

dous impetus in the fourth decade of the 
nineteenth century, demanded bridges of 
longer span, designed for heavier loads, than 
could be built economically of stone masonry 
or timber, and this demand was met by a vast 
improvement in the quality of iron and later 
of steel, as well as in the processes of manufac- 
ture, which made possible the production of 
greatly increased quantities of this material 
at much lower cost than before. 

At first, cast iron was extensively used for 
bridges of the arch type; then wrought iron 
chains and later wire cables were provided for 
bridges of the suspension type, while still 
later these types were largely superseded by 
the girder or beam and the articulated truss. 

It is unfortunate that this evolution, while 
progressive from a_ strictly engineering or 
utilitarian standpoint, was retrogressive from 
the viewpoint of architectural merit, this re- 
trogression being due not so much to the type 
evolution as to the psychology of the times, 
materialism displacing all higher motives. 

The first iron bridge, erected in 1779 over 
the Severn River in England at Coalbrook- 
dale, had a cast iron arch span of 100 feet. 

Possibly the three best examples of the cast 
metal arch are the old Southwark Bridge 
in London over the Thames, the great 
Eads Bridge over the Mississippi River at 
St. Louis, and the Alexander HII Bridge over 
the Seine at Paris. 


The Southwark Bridge, completed in 1819, 
had a center span of 240 feet and side spans 
of 210 feet each, constructed of cast iron 
arches. The design and execution was by John 
Rennie, the engineer of the Waterloo and New 
London Bridges. 

John Rennie’s masterpiece has recently been 
replaced by a more modern structure, neces- 
sitated by the demands of heavier traffic as 
well as by the settlement of the piers which 
made the old structure unsafe. This new struc- 
ture, completed in 1921 from designs by 
Messrs. Mott, Hay and Anderson of London, 
has five steel arch spans of 123 to 150 feet 
clear opening as compared with the three 
spans of 210 and 240 feet of the old bridge. 
The plan was developed to conform to the 
openings in adjacent bridges, resulting in less 
interference with the river current. 

This new Southwark Bridge is a beautiful 
structure and is a good illustration of what 
can be accomplished by a combination of 
steel arches and masonry piers. There is no 
elaborate ornamentation, the piers being car- 
ried above the roadway level to form a series 
of simple pylons. 

Sir Ernest George, A. R. A., collaborated 
with the engineers in the design of the mason- 
ry piers and abutments. (Plates XC & XCI.) 
The second bridge to be built over the 
Thames at London was the Westminster 
Bridge, completed in 1750 as a masonry 


[ 145 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


structure of thirteen arches, designed by a 
French engineer, Charles Labelye. It was of 
the view of the city from this bridge that 
Wordsworth wrote, “Earth has not anything 
to show more fair.” Labelye’s Bridge was 
characterized by unusually high parapets, a 
feature that a French writer (Parisian) de- 
clared was intended to prevent the Londoners 
from committing suicide. Possibly his opin- 
ion of the view did not agree with that of 
Wordsworth. 

The old Westminster Bridge lasted a little 
better than a century, being replaced by the 
existing steel structure in 1862. Its failure 
was due to the gradual undermining of its 
foundations by the river, a fate that also 
befell the Blackfriars Bridge (the third to be 
built across the Thames, in 1769, by Robert 
MylIne). And now the river has at last (1926) 
conquered Rennie’s Waterloo bridge. (Plate 
XCII.) 


7 y 7 


The Blackfriars Bridge was rebuilt in 1865, 
under the direction of Joseph Cubitt, engi- 
neer, and was widened in 1908 by Sir Ben- 
jamin Baker. 


vA w 7 


At Constantine, Algeria, there is a fine cast 
iron arch bridge, completed by the French in 
1865 and bearing the inscription of Napoleon 
Ill. The architect in charge was M. Martin. 
(Plate XCIII.) 


The Alexandre HI Bridge at Paris, built 
also with cast steel ribs, in 1899, has already 
been described. (Page 111.) 


The famous Eads Bridge at St. Louis was 
built in the years 1868 to 1874 by James B. 


Eads, one of America’s most noted engineers 
The arch ribs are of cast steel and have a clear 
span of 520 feet with a rise of 47 feet for the 
central arch and a clear span of 502 feet for 
the flanking spans. The construction of this 
bridge was considered to be a great engineer- 
ing achievement in its day and it has safely 
carried the greatly increased loads of modern 
highway and railroad traffic. Its graceful 
arches are a pleasing contrast to the more 
modern trusses of its neighbors. 

“Although some of its details have been 
altered and strengthened, the main frame of 
braced arch tubes is still intact as originally 
constructed and is carrying present day traffic 
in volume and weight far beyond the designs 
and expectations of its builders. This unusual 
record is a fine tribute to the work and per- 
sonality of James B. Eads.* About 600,000 
passenger and freight cars and over 50,000 
locomotives cross the bridge each year. The 
bridge cost about $7,000,000.” (C. E. Smith, 
before the American Railway Bridge and 
Building Association, 1924.) (Plate xcrv.) 


*Mr. J. B. Eads, the eminent American engineer who con- 
ceived and executed this noble project, against great odds, 
made the following statement in the course of an address 
delivered in 1871. The sentiment expressed therein seems to 
be worthy of repetition here. He was speaking of the Missouri 
River. 

“My experience of this current has taught me that eternal 
vigilance is the price of safety, and constant watchfulness is 
one of the first requisites to insure success, almost as much as 
knowledge and experience. To the superficial observer, this 
stream seems to override old-established theories, and to set 
at naught the apparently best devised schemes of science. 
But yet there moves no grain of sand through its devious 
channel, in its course to the sea, that is not governed by laws 
more fixed than any that were known to the code of the 
Medes and Persians. No giant tree, standing on its banks, 
bows its stately head beneath these dark waters, except in 
obedience to laws which have been created in the goodness 
and wisdom of Our Heavenly Father, to govern the condi- 
tions of matter at rest and in motion.” 


[ 146 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


The Whipple Truss 

Cast iron was extensively used in the early 
part of the nineteenth century, in Amer- 
ica, for the compression members of truss 
bridges. Hundreds of structures of the arched 
truss or “Bowstring” type, with the upper 
chord curved in form and made up of cast 
iron segments, while the lower and _ inter- 
mediate members were of wrought iron, are 
still in use. This type of arch was known as 
the Whipple Truss, after its inventor, Squire 
Whipple, of Utica, New York, to whom be- 
longs the honor of having been the first engi- 
neer correctly to analyze the stresses in the 
articulated truss, in his book on bridge build- 
ing published in 1847. For centuries, engineers 
and architects had been building bridges 
without much mathematical knowledge of 
the stresses involved, but relying simply upon 
past experience and good judgment in pro- 
portioning the various members composing 
the structure. These old Whipple arch bridges 
are better looking than many more modern 
types of metal bridges, but are being rapidly 
displaced by structures designed for heavier 
loads. Bowstring trusses of this type have 
been built up to 187 feet span. (Plate xcv.) 

During the nineteenth century, material 
improvements were made in the processes of 
manufacturing wrought iron, and in the last 
quarter of that century wrought iron began 
to be displaced by steel. These improvements 
rendered possible the economical use of 
wrought iron and steel for bridge construc- 
tion of all types, the beam or girder type, 
the cantilever type, the arch, the truss and 
even the suspension type. This strong and 
inexpensive material made possible the con- 


struction of much larger spans than hereto- 
fore. In the case of the arch type, spans have 
constantly increased in length, culminating 
in such a structure as the Hell Gate Arch at 
New York with its single span of nearly a 
thousand feet. 

Some of these great modern steel arches are 
structures of great beauty, as the Washington 
Bridge at New York, the Garabit Viaduct in 
France, the bridge over the Rhine at Bonn, 
Germany, the Upper Steel Arch at Niagara 
Falls, and a bridge over the Aar at Berne, 
Switzerland. Some more modest structures of 
the steel arch type are also worthy of note, 
many by reason of the artistic treatment of 
the combination of masonry and steel, as 
exemplified by the Charles River Bridge at 
Boston, and by some bridges on the Nickel 
Plate Railway at Cleveland, as illustrated in 
the plates. 

The Washington Bridge at New York, over 
the Harlem River, was completed in 1889. 
This beautiful structure consists of twin arch 
spans 508 feet 9 inches in length each, and 
having a rise of 83 feet 4 inches. The arch ribs 
are segmental plate girders, supporting nu- 
merous vertical posts which carry the road- 
way floor. The designer was Wm. R. Hutton, 
chief engineer, with E. H. Kendall as consult- 
ing architect. The designer of this bridge ob- 
tained a pleasing symmetrical design in spite 
of a very unsymmetrical profile. (Plate XCVI.) 
The Garabit Viaduct over the Truyere, 
France, built in 1884, carries a single track 
railroad over a deep and rocky gorge. The 
graceful parabolic arch is a latticed truss, 
deeper in the center than at the ends, and has 


[147 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


a span of 166 meters with a rise of 52 meters. 
The arch rib carries but two posts and two 
more are carried by the abutments. These 
posts have a pronounced batter and are 
latticed like the arch ribs, as are also the 
trusses. The effect is that of extreme simplicity 
and harmony in steel. The design is due to 
M. Eiffel. (Plate XCvil.) 
The Rhine Bridge at Bonn consists of a single 
long and high steel arch flanked by shorter 
low arches. This bridge was completed in 1897. 
The main span is 188 meters in length, be- 
tween piers, while the side spans are each 96 
meters long. The main span is a trussed steel 
arch deeper at the ends than in the center, 
segmental in curvature, and carrying a road- 
way most of which is below the arch and sus- 
pended therefrom. The flanking arches are of 
the deck type. Features of the Bonn Bridge 
are the beautifully proportioned piers, sur- 
mounted by Romanesque towers at the ends 
of the main span and the cast iron ornamental 
portals and railings. 

Bruno Mohring, of Berlin, was consulting 
architect for this project. (Plate XCVIII.) 
A steel arched highway Bridge at Berne, 
Switzerland, over the River Aar, completed 
in 1898, is similar in conception to the Garabit 
Viaduct with this difference, that the latticed 
arch ribs are deepest at the springing, and 
decrease in thickness to a comparatively shal- 
low thickness at the crown, just the reverse 
of the Garabit Bridge. The arch ribs support 
eight high, tapered, latticed columns, which 
carry latticed trusses. The main arch is 114.86 
meters span by 31)% meters rise. A comparison 


of this design with that of the Niagara arch is 
very much in its favor for architectural merit, 
although doubtless this type is somewhat less 
economical of material. The credit for the 
design of this very handsome bridge belongs 
to A. and H. Bonstetten, engineers, and 
B. H. Von Fischer, consulting architect. (Plate 
XCIX.) 

At Ruidesheim, Germany, there is a railway 
bridge over the Rhine that comprises two 
steel arches flanked by simple steel trusses, 
so arranged that they seem to fit the regimen 
of the stream unusually well. (Plate c.) 

The Upper Steel Arch at Niagara Falls, offi- 
cially called the Niagara Falls and Clifton 
Bridge, completed in 1898, carries a highway 
over the raging torrent of the Niagara gorge 
just below the great falls, with a single span 
of 840 feet and a rise of 137 feet. The arch is 
parabolic in curvature and the main span is 
flanked on each end with a shorter inverted 
parabolic arched truss. The main arch rib is 
hinged at the ends only, increasing in depth 
from the ends to the center, and is trussed, 
carrying vertical posts stiffened by horizontal 
braces. The engineer in charge was Mr. L. L. 
Buck. (Plate cir.) 

The great steel arch bridge of the New York 
Connecting Railway, carrying its double track 
over Long Island Sound at Little Hell Gate, 
was completed in 1916, after designs by Gus- 
tav Lindenthal. This magnificent structure 
comprises a single steel arch of 977% feet 
span, flanked by a high trestle on each side, 
from which it is separated by massive masonry 


[ 148 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


towers serving as the abutments of the arch 
span. The main arch rises to a height of 
nearly 300 feet above the river. The intrados 
is parabolic in curvature while the extrados 
curve is reversed near the abutments, where 
the depth between the intradosal and extra- 
dosal curves becomes greatest. An idea of the 
magnitude of this structure may be obtained 
from the quantities of material required, 
about 210,000 tons of steel and 108,000 yards 
of masonry being used. (Plate Crt.) 

The Cambridge Bridge at Boston, Massachu- 
setts, completed in 1908, is one of the finest 
steel arch bridges in the world. The present 
structure replaces the old West Boston 
Bridge, which Longfellow immortalized in 
“The Bridge,” and consists of eleven spans of 
steel plate arches abutting against massive 
granite piers. The center or channel span of 
188% feet is flanked by large piers carrying 
ornamental stone towers. The engineer-in- 
chief was William Jackson and Edmund 
Wheelwright was consulting architect. The 
cost was about two and one-half million 
dollars. (Plate civ.) 

Many small steel arch bridges of merit have 
been built, most of them, of course, with no 
attempt at architectural treatment. Among 
those that show architectural study are some 
street crossings of the Nickel Plate Railroad 


in East Cleveland, Ohio, designed by the late 
A. J. Himes. When compared with the cus- 
tomary designs of such structures, these 
bridges deserve commendation. (Plate Gy.) 

Two graceful steel arch bridges, one in 
Riverside Cemetery, Cleveland, and the other 
near Cleveland, constructed in the early nine- 
ties, are the work of the late Frank C. Osborn 
of that city. (Plate CVI.) 

A German bridge over the Rhine at Worms, 
completed in 1901 by the engineers Schneider 
and Frintzen, and consisting of three steel 
arches, at the ends of which have been erected 
elaborate portal towers, has a distinctive 
character. (Plate CVI.) 

The new bridge at Fortieth Street, Pittsburgh, 
known as the Washington Crossing Bridge, 
consists of three steel arch spans, supported 
by well-proportioned concrete piers. 

The Sixteenth Street Bridge at Pittsburgh, 
recently completed, comprises three trussed 
steel arches of the overhead type and here 
again the charm of the structure is due largely 
to the design of the piers and abutments. 

Mr. V. R. Covell is the engineer in charge 
of these Pittsburgh bridges and Messrs. 
Warren & Wetmore were the architects for the 
Sixteenth Street Bridge and Benno Janssen 
for the Fortieth Street Bridge. (Plates CVITI 
SC EXs) 


[ 149 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


NOGNOT ‘AONADV OIHdVYIOLOHd TVUANGAD AG OLOHd 


LOALIHOYY “ADYORD LSHNYA YIS 
SHAANIDONA ‘NOSHHONYV ¥ AVH ‘LLOW—I26l GHLATANOD—HOCIYE AYVMHLNOS MAN AHL—NOGNOT—OX ALVId 


pane? 


Bien THATS prAaue 


Ron re 


mT it) Twit 


5 Y Beigel : — - He - =e =e 
ES. DS iki were bse? satan — simone GAN wat ¢ THES Te «FRE 1B 
Se Nef ltt Rs 2 Ree i. \ ieee ¥ 9 ve ' * . 
s Ry . u ~ “s x “ 


HLL cu 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


SYAANIONA ‘NOSUHANV ¥ AVH 


NOGNOT ‘AON@DV DIHdVYSOLOHd TVYANAS WOWd OLOHd 


LOALIBDYY “ASYOHD LSHNYA IS 
‘LLOW—I26I—SAWVHL AHL YHAO AHOCTYA MYVMAHLNOS MAN—NOCNOT—IOX ALVTd 


[151 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


[ 152 ] 


PLATE XCII—LONDON—WESTMINSTER BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER THAMES—1862 


PHOTO FROM GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHIC AGENCY LONDON 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


S98I— LOULIHOYUVY NILYVIA 


‘W—HOdITHd VUVINVY TH 


AOIAYAS OLOHd SHAHSTIIANd AHL 


AG LHOIMAdOD 


VIHHOTV ANILLNVLSNOO—III 


r 


yX HLV Td 


153) | 


[ 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


his 


h 


‘OD ONIHSITANd LIOULEA WOUd OLOHd 
YAANIONG ‘SAVa “a ‘S¥f[—?r.8I—YAATY IddISSISSIN AHL YAAO AODGIUA SAVA AHL—OW ‘SINOT \LS—AIDX ALWId 


+ 
= 


= ae: et b 
BSS EAE eT TT iar | 
= ee Be fe Pe r arn &— 
ee er {{ Bie ta | = vores SRB EE 


\Ee ie a 
a aT a g 3 é ; 


[ 154 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


"Mf *M XG OLOHd 
0S8I-SULVIS GALINA NYALSVA—ad AL ATddIHM—HOUV «.ONIMLSMOG,, TVOICAL—AOX FLV Td 


BRIDGE ARGHLT BOTURE 


‘OO ONIBSITANd LIOULAG AHL AW GALHSIYAdOO OLOHd 


LOULTHOYY ONILTOSNOD “TIHGNAM “H “A “YAANTONG AaIHD ‘NOLLOH ‘YH “WM 
HOV SHHONT 6 LAAA 80¢ SNVdS—688I—YA ATHY WATYVH AHL WAAO ADGA NOLONIHSVM—MHOA MAUN—IADX ALVI1d 


156 ] 


[ 


BaD GE SA bl TEC WT sis 


NGINEER—1884 


4 
4 


EIFFEL, I 


‘CVII—FRANCE—GARABIT VIADUCT—M. 


4 


PLAT 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


LOULTHOYV ONTLINSNOD ‘NITHAd “ONTYHOW ONNYA 
4681 GHLA TA NOD—ANIHNY AHL YHAO ADGIYA HOYV TAALS—ANVNYAD ‘NNOP—IIIADX ALVId 


ae 


ae ed eet 


RiP ipso 


[ 158 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


LOALIHDYY “UAHOSTA NOA *H “& 
SHAANTONA ‘NALLALSNOd NOA “H ¥ “¥—868I—-HVV AHL YAAO AOGIMA—ANVTYAZLIMS “ANYHA—XIOX LV Id 


159 | 


[ 


HITECTURE 


~ 
A 


ARC 


BRIDGE 


‘D) ‘V DUFANUNN-DUNESDAV WIMAVANANIHOSVA WOud OLOHd 
ANIHY AHL YHAO HOCTYA AVMTIIVU—-ANVNYED ‘WNIHHSAGNY—) ALVI1d 


al oe OE a ames 
wa ; : PORES rn gt 


> - anaes Oa ceo gam 
A, be, . 
RANT AaNrraNrnewre nt” Ws » % 


- 
Se a 
x% : 3 
= Ma Bp SNA ANESANTSAIS oS 1 SP USUSENNSINN,89, 
SS Nhe Fay, BAA 
ey AP 
: F 


4 Beiter 
Rhett 


[ 160 ] 


BRIDGE. ARCHITECTURE 


“DV OYWEEANYON-DYaAESDNV MIMAVINANIHOSVW Ad GANDISHd “NIOM ‘SND AWG OLOHd 


NYAGOW—ANTHY AHL YAAO AOGINA AVMHDIH GNV AVMTIVE—ANVINNYHD ANDOTOD—ID ALVId 


161 | 


| 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


"Mf *M XG OLOHd 
868I—YHANIONG “MONG “I “I—aOCIUd NOLATITO-VUVOVIN— A ‘N ‘STTIVA VHUVDOVIN—IID ALVTd 


[ 162 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


‘OD DNIHSITANd LIOULAG AHL AM GALHDIVAdOO OLOHA 
YHANTIONG “TVHLINAGNIT AV.LSND—916I—aDdIad ALVD TIHH—A “N “WHOA MAN—IIIO ALVId 


eww WM vwrirosiuds 


jeatn toe ’ 


Bere 


[ 163 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


LOULIHDYY DNILTASNOD “LHDTYUMTHSHM GNOWGA “YaHANISNA AaTHD ‘NOSMOVE WVITIIM 
8001 —YAATY SHUTUVHD HHL YAAO ADGA MOTICADNOT AHL—SSVW ‘NOLSO@—AID ALY Td 


[ 164 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


na ee = 


PLATE CIV-B—DETAIL—LONGFELLOW BRIDGE DETAIL—LONGFELLOW BRIDGE 


[165 } 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YaANIONG ‘SHIWIH ff “V—'AU “I “LS ¥ ‘D0 “A ‘(N JO DNISSOWD LAAULS—OIHO ‘GNVWTHAATO LSVA—AD ALVTd 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


“0 


% 
3 
4 
2 
‘ti 
a 
re 
H 
r 


oe 


cg 


PLATE CVI—CLEVELAND, OHIO—HIGHWAY BRIDGE IN RIVERSIDE CEMETERY—ABOUT 1896 
FRANK C. OSBORN, ENGINEER 


[ 167 ] 


BRIDGE: AR GHITEGIRE 


PLATE CVI-B—CHAGRIN FALLS, OHIO—STEEL ARCH BRIDGE DESIGNED BY FRANK CG. OSBORN 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


NAZLNIYH 8 YHCTHNHOS °} 


=. 


H ‘SU 


H 


‘3 °V DYAENYON-DYaESONV MIYAVANANIHOSVW WOYA OLOHd 


ANIONA—L06I—ANIHY AHL YAAO ADGINA AVMHDIH—ANVINYAD * 


YHOM—IIAD HLV Id 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE CVIII—PITTSBURGH, PA.—FORTIETH STREET BRIDGE OVER THE ALLEGHENY RIVER—COMPLETED 1924 
V. R. COVELL, CHIEF ENGINEER. BENNO JANSSEN, ARCHITECT 


fata 


PLATE CIX—PITTSBURGH, PA.—SIXTEENTH STREET BRIDGE OVER THE ALLEGHENY RIVER—COMPLETED 1923 
V. R. COVELL, CHIEF ENGINEER. WARREN & WETMORE, ARCHITECTS 


[ 170 ] 


ae 


MODERN SUSPENSION BRIDGES 


HE Suspension Bridge is the natural re- 

verse of the arched type, the arch turned 
upside down, so to speak, and is one of the earli- 
est types, having been used extensively by Asi- 
atic peoples since prehistoric times. Until quite 
recently, however, the type was undeveloped, 
due primarily to the lack of proper materials 
for heavy construction. During the last cen- 
tury it has been highly developed by Telford 
in England, Ellet and Roebling in the United 
States, and others. Some of these structures 
are beautiful and worthy to be classed among 
our great monumental bridges, notably the 
three incomparable spans over the East River 
at New York, and the recently completed 
Philadelphia-Camden Bridge. 

As the suspension type of bridge necessarily 
utilizes more perishable materials in its con- 
struction as compared to the masonry arch, 
no ancient structures of this type have come 
down to us intact. There exist in many places, 
however, structures that have been main- 
tained without change of design or construc- 
tion for many centuries. Among these are the 
suspension bridges of Asia, as an illustration 
of which we have selected a bridge located in 
northern Sze-Chuan, China. This bridge is 
constructed of cables of woven bamboo, sup- 
ported on and anchored to heavy masonry 
piers, which carry timber and stucco houses. 
(Plate VII.) 

At Newburyport, Massachusetts, there is 
an old suspension bridge, built in 1810, and 


still in use, although similar to many other 
bridges that have outlived their usefulness 
and been replaced by stronger, and often 
uglier, types. This bridge was built by one 
John Templeton, and has a span of 244 feet. 
The cables or suspenders are made up of 
chains. It has just recently been repaired and 
rebuilt by Prof. George W. Swain, after more 
than a century of service. (Plate Cx.) 

One of the most famous suspension bridges in 
the world is the Menai Straits Bridgein Wales, 
built by Telford and completed in 1826 after 
seven years’ work. This was at that time the 
largest suspension bridge yet built, having 
a main span of 579 feet with approaches of 
high massive masonry arches. The length over 
all is 1710 feet and there are two driveways 12 
feet wide each and one walk 4 feet wide. (Plate 
GX1.) 


Suspension Bridges at Budapest 


Among European bridges notable for their 
beauty are two suspension bridges at Buda- 
pest over the Danube. The more recent bridge 
of Budapest is known as the Elizabeth Bridge 
and was completed in 1905 after designs by 
A. Czechelius, with M. Nagy as collaborating 
architect. The main span is 290 meters in 
length and the length over all 920 meters. 
Massive masonry pylons over the anchorages 
form the principal architectural feature. The 
older and more beautiful structure, known as 
the Kettenbriicke, has a span of 203 meters 


[171 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


and was completed in 1849 after plans by 
W. T. Tierney Clarke. It has well-propor- 
tioned masonry towers and abutments, the 
latter with carved lions ornamenting the end 
posts. 

While not the equal of some of our recent 
American bridges in magnitude of span, there 
can be no doubt of the superior architectural 
value of these two structures. (Plates CXII & 
GXITe) 

fee Tey 

The practical development of the suspen- 
sion bridge to suit modern requirements has 
taken place in America, and many of the 
American bridges possess also aesthetic merit, 
inherent in the natural gracefulness of the 
type, when well designed. Some of the earlier 
and more spectacular structures, such as the 
bridges over the Niagara gorge, have dis- 
appeared, and have been replaced by more 
rigid types which are doubtless more util- 
itarian, but unfortunately somewhat less 
pleasing to the eye. 

The grandfather of this type in the United 
States is the old bridge over the Ohio River 
at Wheeling, West Virginia, constructed by 
Col. Ellet in 1846 to 1849, as a link in the 
National Highway from Washington to the 
West. It has a span of 1010 feet. During a 
storm in 1854, the stiffening trusses were 
wrecked, a lesson that led to a careful study 
of this essential part of the design which 
made possible later the great and successful 
bridges at New York. This bridge was recon- 
structed in 1862 by Col. John A. Roebling 
and is still in service, a delight to look upon. 
Col. Roebling later completed a similar bridge, 
having a span of 1260 feet, across the Niagara 


River below the falls. This structure was re- 
built, with heavier cables, in 1889, and still 
later was replaced with a steel arch. This 
latter became a famous bridge, due largely to 
its spectacular location at the greatest honey- 
moon resort in North America. 


New York—Brooklyn Bridge 


Col. Roebling then undertook the construc- 
tion, as engineer-contractor, of the Brooklyn 
Bridge over the East River at New York, 
which was completed, against great odds, 
financial as well as engineering, in 1883. This 
huge structure, justly celebrated as one of the 
greatest achievements of engineering, also 
possesses artistic merit of a high degree. 
Possibly its designers had little intention of 
erecting a work of art, but of the result there 
can be no doubt. No sculpture, no ornamen- 
tation of any kind is used, or needed. Its 
simple and dignified design is all that is 
necessary. Mr. Roebling made a report to the 
president and directors of the Bridge Com- 
pany in 1867, which closed with these words: 
“The contemplated work, when constructed 
in accordance with my designs, will not only 
be the greatest bridge in existence, but it will 
be the great engineering work of this continent 
and of the age. 

“Its most conspicuous features—the great 
towers—will serve as landmarks to the ad- 
joining cities, and they will be entitled to be 
ranked as national monuments. As a great 
work of art, and as a successful specimen of 
advanced bridge engineering, this structure 
will forever testify to the energy, enterprise 
and wealth of that community which shall 
secure its erection.” Surely this great engineer 


Bree 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


possessed the imagination of a genius, as well 
as the feeling of the artist. To quote again 
from his writings, ““Honesty of design and 
execution, next to knowledge and experience, 
most surely guarantees professional reputa- 
tion.’ Most excellent advice to both engineers 
and architects! Col. Roebling, however, did 
not live to see the completion of this great 
work. While personally laying out the towers, 
he received injuries which caused his death 
in July, 1867. The work was completed by his 
gifted son, Col. Washington Roebling. This 
noble structure has a main span of 1595 feet 
6 inches, and a clear height above the water of 
135 feet, allowing ocean-going vessels to pass 
underneath. Its decks accommodate two ele- 
vated railway tracks, two surface traction 
tracks, two roadways and one walkway. The 
cost was about sixteen million dollars. (Plate 
CXIV.) 


New York—Williamsburg and 
Manhattan Bridges 


Since the building of the Brooklyn Bridge, two 
other suspension bridges have been built over 
the East River at New York, known as the 
Williamsburg Bridge, completed in 1903, and 
the Manhattan Bridge, completed in 1909. 

The former has very little to commend from 
an architectural viewpoint. The staunch stone 
towers of the Brooklyn Bridge are paralleled 
by awkward-looking towers of steel. In the 
design of the Manhattan Bridge, however, we 
witness a return to pleasing proportions, 
made possible by a radical change in the 
principles of construction, consisting in se- 
curing the cables at the tops of the towers, 
thus doing away with the clumsy saddles, and 


hinging the tower itself at its base to allow it 
to rock to and fro with the variations in length 
and sag of the cables. This change permitted 
the use of a comparatively slender tower of 
steel of pleasing form and proportion. 

No consulting architect was employed on 
the general design of the Williamsburg Bridge. 

The Manhattan Bridge has a span of 1470 
feet, while the span of the Williamsburg 
Bridge is 1600 feet, exceeded only by the 
Philadelphia-Camden Bridge recently com- 
pleted. Carere and Hastings were consulting 
architects on the Manhattan Bridge, collab- 
orating with the engineers of the Department 
of Plant and Structures of the City of New 
York. (Plates CXV & GXVI.) 


Engineering of New York Bridges* 
The construction of the great East River 
Bridges at New York was made possible by 
the development of modern methods and 
materials of engineering. Perhaps the most 
important development was that of the pneu- 
matic caisson, by means of which foundations 


*Physical data regarding New York East River Bridges: 

Brooklyn Bridge: Length over all, 7811 ft. 6 in. River span, 
1595 ft. 6 in. Height of towers, 272 ft. Cables, 1524 in. diam- 
eter. Weight of metal, 21,920 tons. Masonry in piers, 85,160 
cu. yds. Capacity, two elevated railway tracks, two surface 
railway tracks, two roadways, 16 ft. 9 in. wide, and one foot- 
walk 15 ft. 7 in. wide. 

Williamsburg Bridge: Length over all, 8908 ft. River span, 
1600 ft. Height of towers, 333 ft. Diameter of cables, 18.625 
in. Weight of metal, 45,285 tons. Masonry, 158,300 cu. yds. 
Total cost, $14,181,560.00. Capacity, six tracks, two road- 
ways, 19 ft. 11 in. each, and two foot walks, 17 ft. 8 in. 

Manhattan Bridge: Length over all, 8325 ft. Length of river 
span, 1470 ft. Height of towers, 322 ft. 6 in. Diameter of 
cables, 2114 in. Weight of metal, 59,450 tons. Masonry, 
308,000 cu. yds. total. Capacity, eight tracks, one roadway, 
35 ft. wide, two walks, 13 ft. 7 in. wide. Cost $14,000,000.00. 

Queensboro Bridge: Length over all, 7450 ft. Longest spans, 
1182 ft. Height, 323 ft. Weight of steel, 73,800 tons. Masonry, 
106,000 cu. yds. Cost, $13,500,000.00. Completed in 1909. 


[178.1 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


in water could be carried to much greater 
depths than was before possible. 

The pneumatic caisson is an adaptation of 
the diving bell, consisting of a chamber open 
at the bottom only, and supplied with com- 
pressed air, the pressure being varied to com- 
pensate the exterior water pressure. Workmen 
operating in compressed air (called sand-hogs) 
can work only in short shifts. 

The pneumatic caisson was used in the 
construction of the Forth Bridge in Scotland, 
the Eads Bridge at St. Louis, which was its 
first notable application in America, and for 
all of the East River Bridges. 

Another important factor was the improve- 
ment of steel wire, making available strands 
of much stronger material than it had here- 
tofore been possible to obtain, and allowing 
the construction of suspension bridges of 
larger span. 

Coincident with these developments was a 
much more accurate knowledge, on the part 
of engineers, of the properties of materials, 
and of the stresses and strains involved in 
bridge structures, a knowledge that came 
from the establishment of engineering colleges 
and from testing laboratories. 


Philadelphia-Camden Bridge 
The Philadelphia-Gamden Suspension 
Bridge,* the largest and newest of the type, 
was completed in 1926 after more than a hun- 


*Physical data regarding Philadelphia-Camden Bridge: 

Total length, including approaches, 9570 ft. Length of 
main span, 1750 ft. Width of bridge, 128 ft. Width of road- 
way, 57 ft. Height of towers above water, 380 ft. Clearance 
of bridge above mean high water, 135 ft. Deepest foundation 
below mean high water, 105 ft. Diameter of cables, 30 in. 
Total length of wire used, 25,100 miles. Granite masonry, 
25,200 cu. yds. Concrete masonry, 289,800 cu. yds. Struc- 
tural steel, 61,700 tons. 


dred years’ agitation for a bridge at this site, 
at a cost of about twenty-five million dollars, 
exclusive of real estate. It is the only bridge 
crossing the Delaware River at Philadelphia. 
The engineers in charge were Ralph Modjeski, 
George S. Webster and Lawrence A. Ball, with 
Paul E. Cret as architect and Clement E. 
Chase as resident engineer. This huge struc- 
ture carries a 57-foot wide roadway, four 
railway tracks and two footwalks. (Plates 
CXVII & CXVIII.) 

Two charming suspension bridges have 
recently been built which illustrate clearly 
the architectural advantages inherent in this 
type. These are the new bridge over the Rhine 
at Cologne, completed in 1915, and the 
Seventh Street Bridge at Pittsburgh over the 
Allegheny River, completed in 1926. These 
two structures are quite similar in design. 
The Cologne bridge has a center span of 184.4 
meters, flanked by two side spans of 92.2 
meters each. (Plate CXIx). 


Pittsburgh—Seventh Avenue Bridge 


The bridge over the Allegheny River on 
Seventh Avenue, Pittsburgh, a beautiful struc- 
ture, recently completed, is but one of many 
bridges planned to cross the Allegheny and 
Monongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh. They 
will replace older structures that fail to meet 
navigation requirements. This structure is of 
the self-anchored suspension type. The main 
span is about 442 feet long and the side spans 
221 feet long, while the roadway is 3714 feet 
wide between curbs, with a sidewalk on each 
side. The similarity of this design to that em- 
ployed for the new suspension bridge across 


[ 174 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


the Rhine at Cologne, and, with the excep- 
tion of the use of metal towers instead of 
masonry, to those at Budapest, is notable. 
These Pittsburgh bridges are being construct- 
ed by Allegheny County, of which V. R. 
Covell is chief engineer of bridges, and the 
program comprises some forty-three bridges 
to be constructed during a period of ten 


years, and entailing an expenditure of about 
$23,000,000. (Plate cxx.) 

The peculiar charm of the suspension bridge 
is due largely to the fact that the system of 
Stresses and strains involved is the most 
simple possible, and every main member of 
the structure expresses strongly the part that 
it plays in the system. 


iva 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


N 


SO 


~~ 


\N 
NS 


, 
vy 


_ °OD ONIMSI1GNd LIOULAG AHL XA GALHOLAAdOD OLOHA 
YHCTINA “NOLATMNAL NHOf—018I—aDdIud NOISNAdSNS NIVHD A'TO—'SSVIW ‘LHOdAMNAMAN—XD ALVId 


176 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


9681 HOC 


NOISNAdSNS S.GHOATHLI—SATVM “SLIVULS IVNAW—IXO HLVId 


ea | 


[ 


BRIDGE-ARCHITECTURE 


re ah} 
CURE corn BB a: 


7% “Sree. 


TEU YT T 


PLATE CXII—BUDAPEST, HUNGARY—KETTENBRUCKE—1849—W. T. TIERNEY CLARKE, ENGINEER 
PHOTO BY ERDELYI, BUDAPEST 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


Lsadvand BeGicCatrict Ad OLOHd 


S061 GHLH Id NOD 
LOALIHOYYV ‘ROWN WW CHAANTDNG ‘SOITHHDAZD “V—aDCIYd HLAAVZITA—AYVONNH “LSHdVONd TIX) BLY Id 


| 


J 


eS 


SUM SVAN 


= 


a9 


[ 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


390189 
NATHOON © 


WYOX MAN ‘SHUNLONULS GNV LNVId dO INIWLIMVdad WOud OLOHA 
YAANIONA “ONITAXOU “V NHOL "1OO—e88I—ADGIUd NATMOOUM—WUOA MAN—AIXD WLW Id 


[ 180 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YHATY LSVA HHL YHAO 


Hoda 


DYOASNVITTIIM—WYOA MHN—AXD HLVITd 


Ye 


[181 ] 


BRIDGE, ARCHITEC TURE 


SLOULIHOYUVY DNILTASNOD ‘SONILLSVH ¥ AYAYYVO “SHHANIONA “MHOA MAN AO ALIO AHL JO 
SHYALOOULS P LNVTd tO LNANLYVddd—606l—YoATY LSVA AHL YHHAO ADCGIYA NVLLVHNVN—YYOA MAN—IAXO ALVWId 


Ss 
ee pan 
ot reralaieampr emt 


MTS pepe, 


rc ANIA ® 


[ 182 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


LOALIHDYY “LAYD “A TOVd 
YAANIONGA AAIHOD ‘IMSHGOW Hd TVe—926I—YH ATH AYVMVTAC AHL WAAO AOCTHE NAGWVO-VIHd THQVTIHd—HAX) ALV Id 


aoe eee ae Saft 1S 


TCR SVST IVA {SIERO 


Sh ee BE a i io 


ete 


[ 183 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


Te 
To ri el 


PLATE CXVITI—PHILADELPHIA-CAMDEN BRIDGE—DETAIL OF ANCHOR PIER—1926 
RALPH MODJESKI, CHIEF ENGINEER; PAUL E. CRET, ARCHITECT 


[ 184 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YWHANIONG ‘ZLAIG “M—Sl6I—ANIHY AHL YHAO ADGLIYA NOISNAdSIS—~ANVINYAD 


ae 


‘ANDOTOD 


XIXO ALVTd 


185 


BRIDGE: ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE CXX—PITTSBURGH, PA.—SEVENTH AVENUE BRIDGE OVER ALLEGHENY RIVER—MAIN SPAN 442 FEET—1926 
V. R. COVELL, CHIEF ENGINEER 


[ 186 ] 


ea 


e - ies 
a ee ee se ee 


om 


——— =. | 


EE 


MODERN CANTILEVER BRIDGES 


| ae only competitor, from an engineering 
standpoint, of the suspension type of 
bridge when used for long spans, is the canti- 
lever type, and this is generally conceded to 
excel all other types in its innate ugliness. Its 
complicated system of trussing is utterly unin- 
telligible to the layman, and being unintel- 
ligible, is necessarily offensive. Even when of 
great and noble proportions, as the huge 
Forth Bridge in Scotland, or the Quebec 
Bridge in Canada, or the Queensboro Bridge 
in New York, it cannot give to the eye that 
pleasure which is furnished by the arch and 
the suspension types. On the other hand, the 
cantilever type furnishes a more rigid struc- 
ture than the suspension type and so is 
better adapted to carry heavy, concentrated 
loads. 

Although these great cantilever bridges are 
all of recent construction, the cantilever type 
is not recent, as the principle has been used 
since the earliest times. These early bridges, 
however, are primitive and almost invariably 
make use of a series of cantilevered beams such 
as shown by the picture of an old bridge at 
Bhutan in Thibet, consisting of cantilevered 
wooden beams, weighted down at the shore 
or pier end by stone masonry. (Plate II.) 

One of the most important structures of 
this type in America is the Queensboro Bridge 
over the East River at New York, completed 
in 1909, formerly known as the Blackwells 
Island Bridge. (See page 174 for physical data.) 

The Queensboro Bridge was designed by 
the engineers of the Department of Plant and 


Structures, with Henry F. Hornbostel as con- 
sulting architect. (Plate CXXT.) 


Bridge over the Firth of Forth 


Of all the great cantilever bridges, this bridge 
is doubtless the most famous. It is the work 
of Sir John Fowler and Sir Benjamin Baker 
and consists of three huge cantilevers, 1700 
feet span and 336 feet in height. The lower 
chords of the cantilevers are curved and 
brought close to the water at the springing 
line, and this fact, together with the compara- 
tively short length of the suspended span, 350 
feet, gives the general effect of two huge arches 
and two half arches. 

The simplicity of the truss system, obtained 
by the use of as few members as practicable, 
and those of large size, also contributes to the 
peculiar appeal of this structure. Unfortu- 
nately, engineers are agreed that this does not 
result in the maximum economy of material 
and the old question then arises—Is it allow- 
able for the engineer to depart from the re- 
quirements of absolute economy in the design 
of a bridge, and adopt a more pleasing out- 
line at somewhat greater cost? The right and 
duty of an architect so to do in the case of a 
monumental building is not questioned. Why 
should not the engineer be allowed the same 
privilege, or rather, be taught the same duty? 
This bridge carries a double track railway and 
was completed in 1883. (Plate CXXIT.) 

A design of cantilever bridge extensively 
used consists of one or more simple truss spans 


[ 187 ] 


BRIDGE 


having the ends cantilevered out beyond the 
piers and supporting shorter and shallower 
suspended spans. Typical of this type is the 
bridge over the Hudson River at Poughkeep- 
sie, New York, the Queensboro Bridge over 
the East River at New York and the bridge 
over the Mississippi River at Thebes, Illinois. 
rikigiy Me 
One of the most famous bridges in the world, 
and holding the record clear span of 1800 
feet, is the Quebec Bridge over the St. Law- 
rence River, located about nine miles above 
Quebec, Canada, where the river is compara- 
tively narrow, but more than 200 feet deep. 
This great structure carries two railroad tracks 
over the river at a clearance for boats of 150 
feet and was completed in 1912 after the 
failure of one structure, which collapsed dur- 
ing erection. This accident occurred on August 
29, 1907, causing the loss of seventy-four work- 
men. The ancient saying that “the bridge de- 
mandsa life’ was more than exemplified in this 
structure, which demanded many. The design 
of the structure as finally built was made by 
Phelps Johnson and G. H. Duggan, of the St. 
Lawrence Bridge Company, acting with an ad- 
visory board of five engineers, of which Ralph 
Modjeski was chairman. (Plate XXIII.) 
(0 See 

The bridge at Thebes, Illinois, built in 1905, 
after designs by Alfred Noble and Ralph 
Modjeski, both eminent American engineers, 
has a length of 2597 feet over all, and com- 
prises one span of about 790 feet and two of 
621 feet. The trusses are so nearly uniform 
in depth that they give the appearance of 
continuous trusses, a type of bridge not much 
different in appearance. (Plate CXxry.) 


ARCHITECTURE 


Simple Steel Trusses and Girders 

The homely and economical simple truss and 
girder bridges, built by the hundreds to carry 
the railroads which have covered the face of 
the land with a network of iron paths during 
the past century, over river and valley 
obstructing their way, have too often been 
the subject of unmerited abuse. Ugly most of 
them are, without question, and yet not all. 
Some are beautiful in their simple lines, and 
others have a distinct charm, especially when 
combined with masonry abutments and piers 
of good outline and proportion. 

The European truss bridge is usually of the 
so-called multiple intersection type, as con- 
trasted to the typical American practice of 
single members, forming triangles and as few 
in number as practicable. Doubtless the mul- 
tiple system is more pleasing to the eye: it is 
more complete and more logical to the un- 
technical mind. 

As typical examples of good American 
and European practice in the design of 
bridges of simple trusses and girders, the 
following structures have been selected for 
illustration: 

Railroad Bridge over Street, London. 
(Plate Cxxv.) 

Bridge over the Hudson at Castleton, N. Y. 
(Plate CXXvVI.) 

Bridge over the Susquehanna River at 
Havre de Grace, Maryland. (Plate CXXvVII.) 

Bridge over the Rhine at Mayence, Ger- 
many. (Plate CXXVIII.) 

Steel Railway Bridge over the Rhine at 
Cologne, Germany. (Plate GXXIX.) 

Steel girder Railway Bridge at Cleveland, 
Ohio. (Plate CXXX1.) 


[ 188 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


[ 189 | 


PLATE CXXI—NEW YORK—QUEENSBORO BRIDGE OVER THE EAST RIVER—1909—DESIGNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 


PLANT & STRUCTURES, CITY OF NEW YORK—HENRY F. HORNBOSTEL, CONSULTING ARCHITECT 


BRIDGE ARGHITE GPG Ran 


SYUAANIONA ‘WHMVE 


SOIAUAS OLOHd SUAHSITANd AHL AP LHDIMAGOD OLOHA 


{NAG YIS GNV YATMOd NHOL HIS—¢s8I—aDGIMd HLYOd AHL—ANWTLLOOS~-HXXO ALVITd 


a 
Y 


RXX YY Yr ‘4a, 
a re : o% ALEX YY) j 


190 | 


| 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YHUNIDNA AMIHD TMSHfCOW 


Hd TVU—L16I—ADNAYMVT OLS AHL YAAO ADGIMA—VGVNVD ‘OHMANO—-INXXD ALWId 


191 


[ 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ODVOIHD ‘AILSIMO Ad OLOHd 


SHUAUNIONGA ‘THSALCOW Hd TV 
(NV HTIPON GCHYATY—S06l GHLATMINOO—YAATY IddISSISSIN AHL YWAAO AOCGIYG— TI ‘SHAHHL—AIXXD ALVId 


{ 192 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE CXXV—LONDON—RAILROAD BRIDGE OVER STREET—ST. PAUL’S IN BACKGROUND 
PHOTO FROM GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHIC AGENCY, LONDON 


[ 193 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


‘AN ‘ANV@‘IV ‘LLDILYVa “9D “H WOU OLOHd 
9c6I—"H “HO CA CN ‘UAHNIONGA ADCIUE ‘ALTUM ‘L “H 
YAATY NOSCGNH AHL YHAO “YY TVULNAD WHOA MAN DONIAYHVOD ADCIYA—'A “N ‘NOLATLSVO—IAXX9D ALVId 


[ 194 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


) 


PLATE CXXVII—HAVRE DE GRACE, MD.—BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. BRIDGE OVER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 


[195 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ANIHY AHL YHAO HOGIYA MAN AHL—ANVNYHD “AONAAVN—ITAXXD ALWId 


[ 196 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


AMVUCG Ad ‘Il WVITIIM AO GNV “UHSVId AD 
‘AL WVITIIM JO ANLVLIS—6S8I—ANIHY AHL YAAO AOCGINA AVM TIVU—ANVINYAD “ANDOTOD—XIXXO ALVTd 


ARGHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


ANIHY AHL YAAO AOGCIYA—ANVNYAD ‘ZNATHOO—XXKXD ALVId 


198 ] 


[ 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


Te 
i en 


YAHANTONA “NOSLYM ° 
816l LIWOd— , oa? 
LAAULS HLO¢ LSVA HAAO ADGIMG GVOUWTIVY—OIHO ‘GNVIAAATTIO—IXXX) ALVTd 


AL albl aaS 


errr vem tees vi , 4 eR sets saint 
HUQTAAEONUAUGA GHbadiNdii aiaatinnittitiil VMUVEUUHEEGRELENUGEUULE ULE 
MPPPTTTTe seeMeuUNNE 


le Fa A 


aut EONUOUEOEECUUNOTUNOAT 
Pre ~ (eee 


a et a es A I ae 


SS 


199 


MODERN CONCRETE BRIDGES 


HE invention of reinforced concrete has 

placed in the hands of modern bridge en- 
gineers a new material in which to work, a 
material that, to many intents and purposes, 
is stone masonry, but stone masonry that has 
the property of offering great resistance to 
tensile stresses, by virtue of the steel embedded 
within, which is protected by the surrounding 
concrete from corrosion. 

Furthermore, this material is plastic and 
can be cast into any desired form, at less ex- 
pense than similar forms can be cut out of the 
natural stone. It is evident, therefore, that the 
new material offers to the bridge engineer and 
to the architect collaborating in bridge de- 
sign, a great opportunity. That the engineers 
and architects have not been oblivious to the 
opportunity is evidenced by many beautiful 
structures built of this material in the last 
two decades, especially those located in the 
United States, which are, as a rule, more 
pleasing than the much lighter and appar- 
ently attenuated forms generally used abroad. 


It was only two decades ago that the chief 


engineer of one of the greatest American rail- 
road systems was quoted as saying that con- 
crete would not be used by that company, 
because he did not believe, and no one could 
make him believe, that man could make as 
good a building stone as that made by the 
Creator. But concrete is now a standard 
building material of that great railroad sys- 
tem as of most others in the construction of 


bridges for which cut stone was formerly used. 
Unquestionably, concrete constructions do 
not possess the same charm as well designed 
and executed cut stone masonry, a truth that 
is explained by one writer as due to the pres- 
ence of the tool marks of the craftsman in the 
case of cut stone structures and its absence in 
concrete. The tool marks express to the obk- 
server the human labor required to create 
the object, and give it a human interest. 

The greatest architectural defect of con- 
crete, however, is doubtless the lack of color 
effect in its finished surfaces, and especially 
the lack of color variety. The uniformity of 
color and texture of concrete surfaces is mo- 
notonous and displeasing. 

This loss of the charm of the natural stone 
wall, however, is balanced by the economy of 
the material, allowing its use in many places, 
especially for small bridges, where natural 
stone could not be used or afforded and where 
cheap, unsightly steel trusses would formerly 
have been built. 

In all fairness it should be stated, however, 
that the ugliness of the small steel bridge is 
due, not to any inherent defect of the ma- 
terial, but to the utter lack of any attention 
to considerations of beauty on the part of 
designers, such lack being caused by the former 
commercialization of the art, practically all 
designs for small structures, and many for 
large ones, being made by the fabricating 
companies, under competitive conditions that 


[ 200 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


precluded any consideration of art or taste. 
Such a system, while possibly resulting in the 
greatest economy of first cost, is essentially 
bad, because it results not only in the total 
elimination of artistic considerations, but 
also results in the production of structures 
that are weak and short-lived, and more ex- 
pensive in the long run than would be the case 
if better designs were adopted at perhaps 
somewhat greater first cost. 

Furthermore, a beautiful and pleasingly 
designed bridge has a certain value to a com- 
munity not easily expressed in dollars, but 
which pays dividends in pride in one’s com- 
munity, a pride which contributes to human 
happiness and contentment. 

Quoting the editor of “The Builder” (Aug. 
27, 1926), “The Engineer’s artistic failures 
occur when he has not interested himself in 
the appearance of his building and allows 
himself to be governed blindly by economy.” 

In studying these illustrations of concrete 
bridges, it will be seen that, in order to obtain 
the most pleasing results, concrete must be 
treated as a different material than natural 
stone and that the obvious forms of cut stone 
masonry should not be imitated in using the 
plastic material. The earlier examples com- 
mitted this error extensively, but later designs 
are better. 

One of the first large concrete bridges to be 
built in this country is The Connecticut Ave- 
nue Bridge at Washington, D. C., completed 
in 1904, after designs by George 5. Morison, 
noted American bridge engineer and designer 
of many railroad bridges; and built under the 
direction of W. J. Douglas, engineer, and 


E. P. Casey, architect. This bridge is 1341 
feet long, 120 feet high and 52 feet wide. It 
contains seven semi-circular arches, five of 
which have a span of 150 feet. These arches 
carry six small spandrel arches, also semi- 
circular. The parapet is composed of concrete 
posts with a bronze railing. The material of 
which the concrete of this imposing work is 
made is crushed granite, and exposed surfaces 
were carefully tooled when cured, exposing 
the aggregates of the concrete. The quoins of 
the piers were made of precast blocks of con- 
crete. 

Considered either from the viewpoint of the 
engineer or the architect, this work must be 
conceded to be one of the finest, if not the best 
executed concrete bridge yet built. After 
twenty-two years of service, it exhibits no 
defects or deterioration. (Plates CXXXII & 
CXXXIIL) 

The Walnut Lane Bridge in Fairmount Park, 
Philadelphia, completed in 1908 after designs 
by H. H. Quimby, has a main span of 233 
feet, a height of 147 feet and width of 60 feet. 
Its setting, being located over a parkway, 
adds greatly to its beauty. (Plate CXXXIV.) 
The Bridge over Rocky River, near Cleveland, 
Ohio, completed in 1910 after designs by 
A. M. Felgate, is quite similar in conception 
to the Walnut Lane Bridge, but more massive 
in design and of longer span. At the time of 
its construction, this bridge held the record 
for length of span for a masonry arch bridge, 
a record since broken by several structures. 
The main arch span is 280 feet opening and 
comprises two massive ribs, not reinforced. 


[201 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


The length over all is 708 feet and the width 
60 feet. The massiveness of these arch rings is 
in harmony with the span and heavy super- 
structure, a feature lacking in so many rein- 
forced concrete arch bridges, the designers of 
which seem to attempt the greatest possible 
attenuity of the arch rib. In the construction 
of this bridge, a facing mixture composed of 
specially selected aggregate (crushed granite) 
was used for all exposed surfaces. (Plate 
CXXXV.) 

The Cherry Street Bridge over the Maumee 
River, at Toledo, Ohio, completed in 1912 
after plans originally drawn by The Osborn 
Engineering Co., of Cleveland, and later modi- 
fied and executed by Ralph Modjeski, has a 
length of 1217 feet and width of 80 feet and 
comprises ten arches, elliptical in shape, and 
having maximum spans of 108 feet at the 
center, diminishing in length toward the ends. 
At the center is a bascule span providing 200 
feet clear opening for the passage of boats, 
and carried on two massive abutment piers. 
These center piers have octagonal ends, which 
were intended to carry ornamental towers de- 
signed by the late Arnold W. Brunner, but not 
built owing to lack of funds, an omission 


which ruins the appearance of so many of our. 


monumental structures. The excuse is always 
made that these ornamental features are not 
strictly necessary, which, of course, has to be 
admitted if it be admitted that beauty of 
form is not a necessity to civilized man. The 
Cherry Street Bridge is described in the 
Transactions of the American Society of 
Civil Engineers, 1915. (Plates GXXxxvI & 
CXXXVII.) 


The King Avenue Bridge over the Olentangy 
River, at Columbus, Ohio, built in 1912 and 
1913 from designs by W. J. Watson and 
Walter Braun, comprises four elliptical arch 
spans of the solid spandrel type. The arches 


a 
ey 


AO ceil nt 9 <8 


CHERRY STREET BRIDGE, TOLEDO, O. 
COLUMN DESIGN BY ARNOLD W. BRUNNER 


have a clear opening of 85 feet each. The length 
over all is 429 feet 9 inches and the width 47 
feet. This bridge may be considered as typical 
of its kind, although greater pains have been 
taken to obtain pleasing lines than is usual 


[ 202 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


in this class of structure. The essential features 
may be described as the use of perfect ellipses 
for the intradosal curves, curved cutwaters 
for the piers, curved retaining walls at the 
abutments and a carefully executed parapet. 
Another feature of this bridge is the light 
color, almost white, obtained by the use of 
selected aggregates (white limestone) for the 
concrete. No attempt to imitate cut stone 
masonry is made. 

Some details of the King Avenue Bridge at 
Columbus, Ohio, illustrate methods of treat- 
ing cutwaters and piers. The slight projection 
of the pilasters, only a few inches, is just 
enough to provide a line for the necessary 
expansion joints. The treatment of the wing 
walls at the abutments, which are curved 
instead of straight, is a detail not expensive 
to carry out in concrete. (Plate CXXXIX.) 

A concrete Viaduct at Willoughby, Ohio, car- 
ries the Buffalo-Cleveland Road, a heavily 
traveled highway, over the valley of the 
Chagrin River, on a bridge 1080 feet long, 
containing nine arch spans of 100 feet each 
and two 50 feet each. The parapets and lamp 


t, al br PK 


a 


KING AVENUE BRIDGE, COLUMBUS, O.—DETAIL 


KING AVENUE BRIDGE, COLUMBUS, O.—DETAIL 


standards are of cast concrete, using red 
granite aggregates, the surface being scrubbed 
while the concrete was green in order to expose 
the granite. This bridge was completed in 
1921, after designs by W. J. Watson and 
W. P. Brown, with M. P. Potter as collabor- 
ating architect. (Plates CXLII & CXLIII.) 


uw 7 cf 


A concrete bridge of the New York Central 
Railroad at Willoughby is a good example 


[ 203 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


THIRD AVENUE BRIDGE, COLUMBUS, 0,—DETAIL 


of the massive type of concrete arch of the 
ribbed type, as adapted to heavy railroad 
work. This bridge was designed by Samuel 
Rockwell, chief engineer, and O. W. Irwin, 
assistant. (Plate GXLIV.) 

Richmond, Virginia, has a_ historic bridge 
over the James River known as the Mayo’s 
Bridge, a bridge bearing this name having 
existed at this site from early colonial times. 
In 1911, it was decided to replace the old 
structure, which was too light for the in- 
creasingly heavy traffic, with a new and 
modern concrete structure, and a board of 


three engineers, consisting of the late Col. - 


C. P. E. Burgwyn, Chas. E. Bolling and W. J. 
Watson, was appointed to report upon plans. 
Competitive plans were received and the de- 
sign submitted by The Concrete Steel Engi- 
neering Company of New York was selected. 
This bridge is 1775 feet long over all, and 
contains eighteen arches, having a clear span 
of 71 feet and a rise of only 7 feet. The project 
was completed in 1914. In no way does the 


design of this structure involve concrete in 
imitation of cut stone masonry forms. (Plates 
IXLV & CXLVI.) 


> Y of 


At Akron, Ohio, there stands a reinforced 
concrete highway bridge over the Cuyahoga 
River Gorge, which is one of the highest 
structures of this kind in the world, its deck 
being 192 feet above the water. On account 
of its great height and park-like setting, in a 
deep wooded ravine, this bridge presents a 
striking profile. Its length is 781 feet 9 inches 
over all and it comprises five semi-circular 
arches, each 127 feet in length from center to 
center of high, hollow piers. The engineer 
was W. J. Watson. This bridge was built in 
1915. (Plate cXLvII.) 


y uf t, 


The concrete viaduct carrying the Cumberland 
Valley R. R. over the Susquehanna River at 
Harrisburg, Pa., was built in 1915-16, from 
designs by the Railroad Company’s engineers. 
This massive bridge is 4000 feet long and 
comprises 45 spans of about 76 feet each. 


RAILING AND POST OF WILLOUGHBY BRIDGE 


[ 204 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


The work was carried out in two longitudinal 
halves, traffic on the railroad not being inter- 
rupted by the construction. (Plate CXLVIII.) 


On the Florida East Coast Railway, between 
Miami and Key West, a very long concrete 
bridge connecting two keys, famous as the 
Long Key Viaduct, was completed in 1907. 
The design is not unusual and is devoid of 
architectural treatment, but its great length 
of two miles and the boldness of the under- 
taking, the site being in the open sea, are 
noteworthy, and have caused it to be classed 
as a wonderful engineering accomplishment. 


At Dayton, Ohio, a number of imposing 
bridges of reinforced concrete cross the Miami 
and Mad Rivers, some of which were built 
before the great flood of 1913, that destroyed 
a large part of the city, and were but little 
damaged thereby. 

A recent structure by Chamberlain & 
Smith, architects, of Dayton, is unique in 
design. (Plate CXLIX.) 


The longest concrete bridge yet built in a 
single span was recently completed over the 
River Seine, below Paris, boasting the un- 
precedented span of 450 feet. It possesses 
little architectural merit, and it is somewhat 
puzzling to one that the French engineers and 
architects, who have built the most beautiful 
stone bridges in the world, seem to make so 
little effort to obtain equally pleasing designs 
in concrete. (Plate CL.) 


The Tunkhannock Viaduct, on the D., L. & 
W.R. R., is the most stupendous achievement 
in concrete bridge construction yet attempted. 


This great structure is 2375 feet in length, and 
240 feet in height above the ground, while its 
foundations extend another 60 feet below the 
ground surface, a total height of 300 feet, 
easily the world’s record for this kind of a 
bridge. The design is by George J. Ray, chief 
engineer, D., L. & W. R. R., and the work was 
carried out by Flickwir & Bush, contractors, 
and completed in 1916. About 162,000 cubic 
yards of concrete were used in its construction. 
(Plate CLI.) 

The division of the arch ring into imitation 
voussoirs is especially to be criticised in this 
case, as the proportions of the arch rings make 
them obviously false. Would not the piers 
look better if the jointing also had been 
omitted, or so designed as not to simulate 
cut stone forms? 

Another detail used in the design of the 
Tunkhannock Viaduct and in many other 
recent bridges, which is evidently superfluous 
and therefore questionable, is the use of the 
projecting cap at the top of the spandrel posts. 
In most cases, the design would actually be 
much improved by the omission of this ex- 
pensive detail. This statement is well illus- 
trated by a comparison of this detail of the 
Tunkhannock Bridge with that used on the 
Connecticut Avenue Bridge at Washington. 

The D., L. & W. R. R. has built many very 
beautiful concrete bridges in recent years, that 
over the Delaware River just below the Dela- 
ware Water Gap being perhaps the most 
striking. This bridge has a length of 1450 feet 
and is composed of a series of 150-foot spans 
of the open spandrel type. It was completed 
in 1910. Lincoln Bush and George J. Ray were 
the engineers in charge. (Plate CLIT.) 


[ 205 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


The Washington Street Memorial Bridge at 
Wilmington, Delaware, is a fine example of 
the modern concrete highway bridge, one of 
the best yet executed. The design is by B. H. 
Davis, engineer, in collaboration with V. W. 
Torbert, architect. This bridge comprises a 
single arch span, of the ribbed, open spandrel 
type, flanked on each side by two arches of the 
solid spandrel type. At each end of the main 
span are massive pylons supporting memorial 
tablets, and smaller pylons are placed at the 
ends of the bridge. (Plates CLIII, CLIV & CLV.) 

It has been suggested that the arch ring 
and the piers also of a concrete bridge should 
be divided to indicate just how the sections 
were placed. 

The charm of stone masonry is largely due 
to the fact that the jointing expresses the 
manner in which the work is done. False joints 
in stone masonry, therefore, are generally 
avoided. Should not this principle be applied 
to concrete masonry? 

Stone masonry is laid up of separate blocks, 
while concrete is a plastic material and should 
not imitate the structural forms and details 
of stone block masonry which are required by 
the nature of the material, but are not re- 


quired by concrete. Authorities on architect- 


ural history tell us that the dentils used in 
classical structures are probably imitations, 
in stone, of the ends of timber rafters used 
in still more ancient structures. Dentils, how- 
ever, when used as corbels, serve a useful 
purpose in supporting an overhanging cornice 
or coping, and they have been extensively so 
used in bridges in the past, and quite effec- 
tively. When the dentil is introduced into 


concrete masonry, however, it does not seem 
to express this function as well as it did in 
stone masonry. In concrete designs it is seldom 
used as a structural member, its function 
becoming evidently purely decorative. 

Concrete is essentially monolithic, and de- 
signs executed in concrete should, properly it 
would seem, express this fact, not conceal it, 
and this expression can be conveyed by the 
use of plastic forms, mouldings and curved 
surfaces. In spite of much that has been 
quoted herein about unnecessary decoration 
as applied to bridges, a certain amount of 
plastic decorative design helps to express to 
the observer the nature of the material. 

Proper treatment of the surface is also 
needed to express the nature of concrete. In 
Stone masonry this is accomplished by the 
tooling necessary to prepare the blocks for 
use. In the case of concrete, which is composed 
of cement and small pieces of stone, if it is 
desired to show these elements, surface treat- 
ment is required, which is not a constructive 
necessity, but purely a finishing operation. 
The Dumbarton Bridge, on Q Street, Wash- 
ington, D. C., a very unique structure, carries 
Q Street over Rock Creek Park on a curve. 
The spandrels are tooled to give a coarse 
texture to the concrete. The arches are semi- 
circular in shape, being outlined with a nar- 
row ring of smooth finished concrete. The end 
posts are surmounted by heavy cast bronze 
buffaloes designed by A. Phimister Proctor, 
sculptor. The architect was Glenn Brown. 
(Plate CLVI.) 


7 xy 7 


The new bridge over the Monongahela River 


[ 206 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


at Fairmont, West Virginia, claims especial 
merit in the treatment of the railing, the 
combined trolley and lighting poles and 
the overhanging recesses. The design is by 
The Concrete-Steel Engineering Company of 
New York, William Meuser, engineer. (Plate 
CLVIH.) 

A bridge at San Diego, California, called the 
Cabrillo Bridge, consists of a series of severely 
plain concrete arches and formed one of the 
principal approaches to the Panama-Califor- 
nia Exposition held in 1915. This bridge was 
greatly admired by visitors to the Exposition. 
Itis utterly devoid of any attempt at ornamen- 
tation and practically without detail, yet 
beautiful in its simplicity. It is composed of 
seven semicircular arch spans of 56 feet open- 
ing each, and has a total length of 946 feet. 
The designer is Frank P. Allen, Jr., in col- 
laboration with Cram, Goodhue & Ferguson, 
architects. (Plate CLVIHL.) 

The Cappelen Bridge over the Mississippi 
River at Minneapolis, Minn., contains the 
longest reinforced concrete arch yet construct- 
ed in America, 400 feet in length. This bridge 
is named for the late F. W. Cappelen, City 
Engineer of Minneapolis, and is 1100 feet 
long, comprising one span of 400 feet, two of 
199 feet, and two of 55 feet opening, carrying 
a 40-foot roadway and two 8-foot walks. 
(Plate CLIX.) 

At St. Paul, Minnesota, Messrs. Toltz, 
King and Day, architects and engineers of 
that city, have built a reinforced concrete 
bridge over the Mississippi River, known as 
the Robert Street Bridge, which comprises a 


clear span of 244 feet in its total length of 
1900 feet and presents some unusual archi- 
tectural details. (Plate CLX.) 


Pont Butin at Geneva, Switzerland 


A bridge has recently been completed at 
Geneva, Switzerland, which illustrates the 
modern tendency among European engineers 
and architects toward the use of concrete and 
stone masonry in combination, the former as 
a strictly structural material, and the latter 
for facing purposes. This bridge is known 
as the Pont Butin, and spans the River 
Rhone. Its length over all is 276 meters, 
comprising five semicircular arches with clear 
spans of 48 meters. These five arches carry the 
railway tracks and a series of twenty-five 
smaller arches which form the upper deck, 
used for a highway 15 meters wide. The height 
is 52 meters. The entire structure is of rein- 
forced concrete with a facing of limestone and 
granite. The engineers in charge were M. M. 
Bollinger and Company of Zurich, and the 
architect collaborating was M. Garcin, of 
Geneva. (Plate CLXII.) 

Other modern European masonry bridges, 
constructed partly or wholly of concrete, and 
worthy of study, are the Pont de Malling, a 
railway bridge in Lorraine, and two bridges 
at Rome, known as the Ponte Cavour and the 
Ponte Umberto. (Plates CLXIII, CLXIV & 
CLXV.) 

Zaionte 
A bridge of unique design was built by the 
Westchester County Park Commission in 
1915, at Scarsdale, New York, from plans by 
Delano and Aldrich, architects, in collabora- 
tion with the engineers of the Commission, 


[ 207 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


of which J. Downer is chief engineer. 

This bridge is on a curve and the spans are 
supported on circular piers placed on the 
center line of the roadway. (Plate CLXVI.) 

So few American bridges have the charm 
of old historical interest or of ancient folklore 
that attaches to many bridges in Europe, that 
advantage should be taken of every oppor- 
tunity to lend interest to the more important 
structures by naming them in commemora- 
tion of historic events that took place in the 
locality, or by the name of the community 
which they serve, or occasionally, the name 
of a noted architect or engineer. 

The Key Bridge at Washington, recently 
completed, crosses the Potomac River near the 
site of the home of Francis Scott Key, the 
composer of “The Star Spangled Banner’; 
the proposed Arlington Bridge will form the 
principal approach from the City to Arlington 
National Cemetery; the Cappelen Bridge at 
Minneapolis (already described) was so 
named in honor of a city engineer who served 
the municipality faithfully for many years 
and well merited the recognition. The Cali- 
fornia State Highway Commission has named 
one of its most beautiful structures after the 
late Harlan D. Miller, for many years its 


bridge engineer. How much such a plan adds. 


to the human interest of a bridge. (Plates 
CLXVII, CLXVITI, CLXIX & GEXK) 

The ordinary railroad bridge is seldom in- 
teresting from any standpoint except that of 
strict utility, safety and economy, yet quite 
often this type of structure may be greatly 
improved, architecturally, without increase of 
cost. This was the case with the two crossings 
of streets by the tracks of the Cleveland & 


Youngstown R. R., and the New York Cen- 
tral R. R. in Cleveland, shown by plates. The 
tracks are carried over the streets by massive 
concrete arches, designed for the heaviest 
modern loading, with no attempt whatever 
at ornamentation, such interest as they have 
being due entirely to their mass and propor- 
tion. These structures cost no more than much 
less attractive bridges of steel would have 
cost, although very pleasing results can be 
obtained, if desired, with the latter material. 
Unfortunately, in so many cases, the desire 
to make such structures good-looking does 
not exist, either in the minds of the owners 
or of the designers, or, if it does exist, is 
immediately dismissed with the idea that 
anything that is good-looking is necessarily 
more expensive and extravagant or wasteful. 
(Plates CLXXI, CLXXII, CLXXIII & CLXXIV.) 


. 7 7 


Good architecture in bridges is not and 
should not be confined to the larger projects, 
but is of equal importance to the small 
structure. As examples of what may be 


RAILING DESIGN BY 


Cc. A. P. TURNER 


[ 208 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


accomplished in the design and construction 
of small highway bridges in concrete, note the 
illustrations of such structures at Niagara 
Falls, Ontario; Lynchburg, Virginia; Mont- 
clair, New Jersey; at Piedmont and at River- 
side, California; at Cincinnati, Ohio; at Jack- 
sonville, Florida; Gaston County, North Car- 
olina, etc. All of these are small, inexpensive 
structures. (Plates CLXXV, CLXXVI, CLXXVII, 
Oiercvitl CLXXIX, CLXXX, GLXXXI, CLXXXI; 
CUAXKXIM, CLXXXIV, CLXXXV, CLXXXVI, 
CUAXX VII, CLXXXVIII.) 


Some Proposed Bridges 


Studies are now being made looking to the 
construction of the most stupendous bridge 
ever built—that over the Hudson River at 


Fort Lee, New Jersey. A tentative report has . 


already been made by a commission of the 
Port of New York Authority, composed of 
O. H. Ammann, W. W. Drinker, Prof. W. H. 
Burr, engineers, and Cass Gilbert, architect. 
This tentative report contemplates the con- 
struction of a suspension bridge comprising a 
central span of 3500 feet, twice that of the 
Philadelphia-Camden Bridge, the longest yet 
built. The towers would be 650 feet high, 
nearly 100 feet higher than the Wash- 
ington Monument at Washington. The 
preliminary drawings by Cass Gilbert show 
masonry towers (encasing the steel skeleton) 
and a conception of surpassing beauty, al- 
though the use of encasing masonry that no 
longer serves a useful purpose may be open 
to criticism. 

The proposed bridge over Kill von Kull, to 
be built by the Port of New York Authority, 
will contain a steel arch span of 1650 feet span, 


equaling that at Sydney Harbor, Australia. 
Prof. W. H. Burr and Gen. George W. 
Goethals are consulting engineers for the Kill 
von Kull Bridge, and Cass Gilbert is architect. 


Modern Opening Bridges 
One of the difficult problems confronting the 
modern bridge engineer is that of obtaining 
a pleasing treatment of the opening bridge, 
a type generally considered to be inherently 
and hopelessly ugly, and which many engi- 
neers spend no effort to make anything else. 
Recent drawbridges built and now being 
built in Chicago, however, possess distinct 
architectural merit. Among those now com- 
pleted are the Michigan Avenue Bridge, the 


WEST SUMMIT STREET BRIDGE, WARREN, O0.—DETAIL 


[ 209 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


ROBERT STREET BRIDGE, ST. PAUL, MINN. 


West Madison Street Bridge and the Frank- 
lyn Street Bridge. 

These bridges are designed in collaboration 
between the engineers of the Department of 
Bridges of the City and the architect of the 
City Plan Commission and the results speak 
for themselves. 

The treatment of the approaches to the 
Michigan Avenue Bridge is very elaborate, as 


befits such an important crossing, and in- 


cludes provision for statuary on the four main 
pylons and for wide plazas. 

EK. H. Bennett is consulting architect to the 
Plan Commission and to him is much of the 
credit due for the results obtained. 

At Wilhelmshaven, Germany, there has 
recently been constructed a double swing 
bridge of unique design, the trusses combining 
the cantilever and suspension principles. 


Probably the most ornate opening bridge 
ever built is the Tower Bridge over the Thames 
at London, opened for traffic in June, 1894. 
This is the joint work of J. W. Barry, as engi- 
neer, and Horace Jones, as architect. The 
length of the bridge is about 800 feet, com- 
posed of a channel span of 200 feet clear open- 
ing, and two fixed flanking spans of the sus- 
pension type. The very elaborate towers have 
a skeleton of steel, encased in granite, stone 
and brick. An unusual feature is the provision 
of a foot walk at a clearance of 141 feet over 
the river, for use when the draw is open, and 
reached by elevators in the towers. 

The Anacostia Bridge at Washington has 
a very neatly designed bascule span of 100 


Sieg agitate ioe once 


GLENS FALLS, N. Y. BRIDGE STAIRS 


[ 210 ] 


a 


BRIDGE 


feet. clear channel opening. This bridge, con- 
sisting of a series of steel arch spans, was built 
in 1902, under the direction of Col. John 
Biddle, U.S. A., and W. J. Douglas, engineer 
of bridges. 

The Cherry Street Bridge over the Mau- 
mee River at Toledo, Ohio, comprises a 
bascule channel span with a clear opening 


ARCHITECTURE 


of 200 feet flanked on each side by heavy 
concrete piers which conceal the operating 
parts, as is the case at the Anacostia Bridge. 
The effect of the Toledo Bridge is marred 
by the omission of the pylons planned by 
the late Arnold Brunner. (Plates CXCI, CXCII, 
CXCIII, CXCIV, CXCV, CXCVI, CXCVII, CXCVIII 
& CXCIx.) 


Pani 


HITECTURE 


= 
A 


ARC 


BRIDGE 


v06I—SUAANIONA ‘SVTONO ‘f “M ¥® NOSIMOW ‘S ‘OHD—ADCIYNE ANNAAV LOOLLOANNOO—9D ‘d ‘NOLONIHSVM—IIXXXD FLV Id 


ee ee fe a oe a Oe rae on, ¥ ¢ , saree tan 


aye 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


SHHHUNIONA ‘SWTONOG f 'M ® NOSTHOW ‘S ‘OHD 
P06l GULWIdNOO—ADCINE ANNAAV LAOILOHANNOD—D “d ‘NOLONIHSVM—HIXXX) ALWId 


engin 


213 | 


[ 


BRIDGE: ARCHITECTURE 


806I—YAANIONG ‘ADWINO “H ‘(H—ADCIYd ANVT LONTIVM—Vd ‘VIHdTACVIIHd—AIXXX) BLV 1d 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


WAANIONGA ONLLIOSNOO ‘NOSLVM ‘f “M “HAANTISNA ONINDISAC “ALVOTHA “WV 
UAAIM AMOOU UAAO NVdS LOOA-087 AO HOUV ALAYONOD—OTHO “ANVTAAHTO—AXXXOD ULV Td 


CS 


gel Ca ar oe i aa 


[215 | 


Ke Cee eee 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


MAANIONA ONILIASNOO ‘IHSALGOW Hd TV ‘SHAANIONG ONINDISHC “OD ONTYHANIONGA 
NYOdSO AHL—ZI6I-MAAIM AAWAVW AHL UAAO ADGINA LAAULS AUYAHO—OIHO ‘OGATOL—IAXXXO ALVId 


[ 216 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YHANIONA DSNILTASNOD ‘IMSAfLGOW Hd TV¥ ‘SYANDISAC “OD ONIMAHNIONA NYOEdSO HHL 
ZI6I—MAIA MOUG—YAAIY AAWOVW AHL YHAO ADGIUA LAHULS AUYHAHO—OIHO ‘OGHTOL—-IIAXXX) ALVId 


Nhe 


[217] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


STAVG ‘H “4 Ad GANDISHC ANGINA AVMHOIH ALAYONOD—Vd ‘NMOLNATIV—HIAXXX) ALVTd 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


OLUMBUS, OHIO—KING AVENUE BRIDGE OVER THE OLENTANGY RIVER—1914 


” 
LA 


PLATE CXXXIX—_¢ 


WALTER BRAUN & WILBUR J. WATSON, ENGINEERS 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YAANIONG ‘NOSLVM ‘f YNATIM—616I—YAAIY ADNVINGAIO YAAO ADGIUA LAAULS GHIHL—OIHO 


fraarierar uu, | patron, sisal Lass J nnn, PRT | T i uuu uuu) ul uu] mama wail) usual) aus aa 
e ; = sa . ” Qo Ma “a uo q os 
wine * 


‘SAGINNTOO—IXD ALVId 


| sasod) saath ssl) stl sl coal al ee amy 
«tits fit E 


7 - owe %, 


oy 
ae 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE CXLI—COLUMBUS, OHIO—BROAD STREET BRIDGE OVER THE SCIOTO RIVER—1921 
BRAUN, KNOLLMAN & FLEMING, ENGINEERS 


[ 221 | 


HITECTURE 


= 
A 


ARGC 


BRIDGE 


LOMLTHOYVY ONLLTNSNOD “WALLOd ‘d ‘WW ‘SHAHNIDNA ‘NMOUM ‘d “M 
CNV NOSLYM ‘f YOATM—Ie6I—YHATY NIYOVHO AHL YHAO ANGINA AVMHOIH—OIHO ‘APGHDNOTIIM—IITXD ALVId 


f 299") 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


oO 


PLATE CXLIII—WILLOUGHBY, OHIO—BRIDGE OVER THE CHAGRIN RIVER—1921—DECK VIEW—WILBUR J. WATSON 
AND W. P. BROWN, ENGINEERS. M. P. POTTER, CONSULTING ARCHITECT 


[ 223 | 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


SYUAHNIONA “NIMUT “M ‘O 
CQNV TTAMMOOY THONVS—YAATHY NIMOVHO AHL YAAO AOGIYA AVMTIVY—OIHO ‘ATHONOTIIM—AITXD ALV Id 


[ 224 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


SHAANIDNA SONLLIOSNOD ‘NOSLVM YAGTIM GNV ONITIOR’ SVHO ‘NAMOUNA A “d O—~OD ONIMHANTONGA 
TAALSALAYONOD AHL Ad NOISHA—€16I—YHATY SANVE AHL YAAO AOGTHA SOAVIN— VA ‘CNOWHDOIY—ATXO ALVTd 


© 
_ 


| 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


SHAANISNA DSNILIASNOD ‘NOSLVM HOGTIM GNV DNITION ‘SVHD ‘NAMOYNE “A ‘d “O—OD ONIYAANISNA 
IAHLSALAYONOO AHL Ad GANDISHG—t16I—YAATY SHINVE AHL YAAO ADAG SOAVN—VA ‘GNOWHOTY—-IATXO ALWId 


| 


[ 226 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YAANIONA ‘NOSLVM ‘ff HOATIM—SI6I—HDIH Lada col YH ATH VOOHVANO YHAO MOCGIMa—OIHO ‘NOUNV—IIATXO ALVId 


HITECTURE 


7 
oon 


( 


BRIDGE AR 


DNOT LAXA 000F—9T6I—YAATY VNNVHANOSNS AHL YAAO AOGIUA GVOUTIVU—Vd SUNASIMYVH—IIATXO ALVId 


Bint D Gil ar he Col el hy GU Re 


NOLAVG ‘UATIGM GUVMOH AG OLOHA 
926I—SUAANIONGA ¥ SLOU.LIHOUV ‘NIVIHAAINVHD ‘ff 8 HLINS “HY A—aOCIYd MYVd GNVTISI—OIHO ‘NOLAVG—XITXO ALVId 


[ 229 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


MYOA MAN ‘GOOMYAGNA ¥ GOOMYGANA Ad HdVUYOOLOHA 
PC6I—YAANIONGA “LANISSAGYA “A—NVdS LOOS-0€F}—ANIAS AHL YHAO AOCTHYA—HONVYA—TO ALV Td 


230 | 


[ 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


tary 
= 
a . Fe 


916I—HHANIONA AMIHD ‘AVY 


‘¢ ‘OH9—'H “UM 8 “TI ‘G—LONGVIA MOONNVHYANDL—ITI) ALVId 


_— sr 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


‘_ ae See Ble 


SUHANIONG ‘AVY ‘f D ¥F HSNA NIOONIT 
O1l6l LIINA—YAATY AYVMVIAG AHL YAAO “YUM BF “Td AO LONGVIA ALAYONOO—dV9 YALVM AYVMVIEAC—IITO ALVTd 


i 


H g } 5 i 4 
meets See~---veb Bow---- cel bow .08 B 


[ 232 ] 


re 


ss 


TURE 


~ 
A 


BRIDGE ARCHITEC 


LODLINOUVY ONLLINSNOD ‘LYHaHOL “M “A 
UAANIONG ‘SIAVG “H ‘d—aDCIYd TVINONWAN LAHULS NOLONTASVM— TA ‘NOLONINTIM—INTO ALVId 


[ 233 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


LOULIHOYUV “LYAdHOL “M “A 
YAANIONG ‘SIAVC “H “d—ccol—HOCINA TVIMOWAW LAAULS NOLONIHSVM—THC ‘NOLONIWIIM—AITIO ALY 1d 


[ 234 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


nis: 2abbitintcoin aie mt, sa Sea es 


PLATE CLV—WILMINGTON, DEL.—WASHINGTON STREET MEMORIAL BRIDGE 
B. H. DAVIS, ENGINEER; V. W. TORBERT, ARCHITECT 


[ 235 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YOLdTNOS “YO.LOOUd YALLSINTHd ‘V “LOBLIHOUV ‘NMOUd NNATS—AOCIUA LAAULS ..0,.—D ‘d ‘NOLONIHSVM—IAIO SLY Id 


Rs 


236 | 


[ 


URE 


a 
A 


( 


BRIDGE ' ARCHITE 


THHLS 


ALAY 


ONOD HHL 


SYAHNIONA “WHOA MAN “OD ONIYHAUNIDNG 
8I6I—HHAIN WIAHVONONOW AHL YHAO AOCIYE ALAYONOD—VA “M 


“LNOWYIVA-IATD ALV Id 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


SLOALIHOYV ‘NOSNOYUAA F ANHGOOD ‘WVeD 
YAANIONG “Uf “NATTV ‘d YNVYA—ST6I—ADCIUA OTTIMAVO— TVD ‘ODI NVS—IIATIOD WLW Id 


[ 238 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


NVdS LOOJA-00)—YHATY Idd ISSIS 


tS) 


YAANIONA ALIO “NATAdd VO “M 
IN AHL YWAAO ADGA NATHdd VO AHL NNIW ‘SITOdVANNIW—XITO 


ULV Id 


TURE 


4C 


ARCHITI 


vy 
A 


af 


BRIDC 


SLODLIHDYV GNV SHAANIONG “ONT ‘AVG ® ONIN ‘ZLIOL 
926I—HAATH IddISSISSIN AHL YAAO ANGINA LAGULS LYAGOU—NNIW “TNVd “LS—XTO ALVId 


es 


= 
| 

i ; 

x 

| 

i 

g 

| 


oe ee tee) aed 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


YAANDONG SNEVMS ‘a (OWD—HAAIY OVININYHIN AHL YAAO AOCIYE ALHYONOD— SsvW “THHYHAVH—IXTO ALV Id 


HITECTURE 


+ 
A 


fb 


AR 


BRIDGE 


VAGNGD ‘Sauaud NAITINL AM OLOHA 


SHAANIONA “OO ¥% UAONITION “WW : 
LOGLIHOYY ‘NIOUVD ‘W—9261 GALA Td NOD—ANOHY AT YAS ‘NILNA LNOd—VAHNAHS—UXTD ALVId 


‘ “ >i. 


8 Sie es 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YHAUNTIONG ANYNOLA 


S 


r 


Vd “N—HTISSOW VI HOS 


ONITIVA AG LNOd—ANIVUNOT-INXT) ALVId 


[ 243 ] 


ARGHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


1 


ae 


aONAUOTA ‘IOOUM A OLOHA 
c06I—YNOAVD ALNOd—HWOY—AIXID ALVId 


es i 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


cS 


a 


woud “da WOUd OLOHd 


668I—O.LHHUEND ALNOd—HNOY—AXTO ALVId 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


Saree Neon 
Z Setar ~ += 


= ee Ee. e 


Sa ce 
\ ~~ 
\ eS: Sae ae 


PLATE CLXVI—SCARSDALE, N. Y—WESTCHESTER COUNTY PARK BRIDGE—1915—JAY DOWNER, CHIEF ENGINEER 


DELANO & ALDRICH, CONSULTING ARCHITECTS. ARTHUR G. HAYDEN, DESIGNING ENGINEER 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


C%6I—HAAIN OVNOLOd AHL YWAAO HOGTHA AHH LLOOS SIONVYA AHL) “a ‘NOLONIHSVM—IIAXTO ALVITd 


[ 247 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


dearentihte paprgeine 


panei 


PLATE CLXIX 
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY BRIDGES—MODERN CONCRETE 
HARLAN D. MILLER, STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER 


[ 248 | 


ARGHITEOQTURE 


BRIDGE 


YAHANIONA ADGA ALVIS ‘YATIUN ‘G NVTYVH Ad da 


on 


TEE Hussag teat he ite ae NAa SONNURUSAAN guupanatnyE ‘ayerenbenye senvannner tities er 


YISHAU—ADGTYd AVMHADIH—VINYOATTVO—XXTO ALVId 


Sri ne rr 


#Utevevetex | UAGRSE LOS ervey ever ge Sh 


sane 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YHANIONGA “NOSLVM ‘f YNATIM 
916I-SLUAULS YAAO GVOUTIVY WOVUL YAO ONIAYYVO SHHOYV ALHYONOO—OTHO ‘GNVTHANTO—IXX1) WLW Id 


[ 250 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YHAUNIONGA 


‘NOSLVM ‘f°M AG GANDISHG—916I—LAHULS YAAO AOCIYA AVM TIVYE—OLHO ‘GNVTIAANTIO—IIXX1ID ULV Id 


ese | 


[ 251 ] 


a ee ee eee ——_ «| / a“. _ vy  . 


SHHUNIDNA “OD ¥ HANIAYHD “A f—HAATY SHINVE AHL YAAO ADCGINd GVOUTIVU—VA ‘GNOWHOI—TIXX TD ALV Id 


ARCHITECTURE 


Vee il 


BRIDGE 


ARCHITECTURE 


E 


1 
I 


BRID( 


‘OO DNIASTTEANd LIOULAG Ad OLOHd 


SUAYNIDNG “OD DNIVAUNIDNA NYOUSO AHL—c06I—MAAYD VOVNVD LSAM YHAO ADC — AON UHI YAH—ALXX'TO ALV'Id 


[ 253 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


"M ‘£°M AM OLOHd 
C06I—MUVd VIMOLOIA NHANO NI HOGIYA AVMTIVE— LNO ‘STTVA VUVOVIN—AXXTO ALVTd 


[ 254 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE CLXXVI—CINCINNATI, OHIO—BRIDGE DESIGNED BY GARBER & WOODWARD, ARCHITECTS 


[255 ] 


ARCHITECTURE 


E 


q 
A 


BRID¢ 


YAANIDNA DONELTOSNOD “NOSLVM “f HOPTIM “YHANTSNG ALIO YONVHS “TH 
606I— AY NYAH.LAOS YHAO LHAYLS HLA ONIAWYVD ADCIYd— VA ‘DYNGHONAT—IIAXXID ALVI1d 


en, 


a en — 
te ~ 


256 | 


TURE 


~ 
A 


BOR Go Be SAL GEE Le Es 


SI6I—YHHNIDNG * 


SHLYHNA “H SWf—THVLAG—LONGVIA LHAYLS G—VA 


‘SYUNGHONAT—INAXX'ID ALVId 


HEL EG Bes 


BRIDGE ARC 


els WL, 


O1T6I—MAHYO OYNASLOd ATLLIT HHAO HOCIYE ATd ALHYONOO—VW1A ‘ATITANOSMOVI—XIXX1) ALV Id 


Sere To 


« 
? 
5 


og 


ie ilies sa co : 


fe as La 


E 


OTRAS et SORE 


bes 


Lactose 


bs 


NOSIVM “£ HWAATIM AG OLOHd GNY NOISHG 


“ya 


BRIDGE 


ARCHITECTURE 


NED BY WILBUR J. WATSON 


SIG 


xE IN NORTH CAROLINA—DE 


HWAY BRIDC 


RETE HIG 


1 
4 


ONC 


.] 
A 


PLATE CLXXX—A SMALL (¢ 


TURE 


y ia 
A 


BRIDGE ARCHITEC 


YHUNIONA ‘NOSLVM “ff WO TIA 
916I— LHAYLS LINIWOS NO YHATY ONINOHVW AHL YHAO HOCGIYd ALAYONOD—OIHO ‘NHYYVM—IXXXTO ALV Id 


Pp. me Rs 


6 Ee 


io 


[ 260 ] 


BRIDGE. ARCHITECTURE 


~’ 


6s eit tate tape 
steatea, sg We WEARS won Gn 


ah oes 
A AEM LM he AMM Fee 


he Ths) wane) Wy ; oF ek 
iNen geen eh ae 4S bee AAG Neg “an 4 Ge Ms A, Pie 4 


rig ere 


PLATE CLXXXII—CHESTER, PA.—MEMORIAL BRIDGE—1926—CLARENCE W. BRAZER, ARCHITECT 


[ 261 | 


4 


ARCHITECTURE 


EK 


~ 
I 


BRID¢ 


“KN ‘ASOQOVUAS “OO ALIIOHLIT VOVGNONO WOUd OLOHd 


‘ft °N YIVIOLNOW—V-IIXXX1)D ALV Td 


ALYYONOD LSVOUUd dO SLAdVYVd—HOCTYHH WYVd ALHYONOD 


BRIDG 


oe 


bez, eS oe, 


ee 


E ARCHITECTURE 


LXXXIII-B—MONTCLAIR, N. J—CONCRETE PARK BRIDGE 


at 
A 


PLATE C 


PHOTO FROM ONONDAGA LITHOLITE CO., SYRACUSE, N. Y. 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


Fl6I—ADGIHd AVMHDIH ALAYONOD TIVNS—ATTVO “LNOWCAId—V-AIXXX19 


AHLV Id 


264 | 


| 


Fl6I—ADCIYA HOYV ALAHONOD TIVIANS—AITVO “LNONWGHId—d@ AIXXXTD ALVId 


oa 
faa 
— 
Ee 
O 
ea 
= 
_ 
on 
SS 
fan 
=< 
ea 
& 
(a) 
— 
fan 


BRIDGE. ARCHITECTURE 


MUOK MAN ‘GOOMYAGNA ¥ GOOMYAGNA Ad OLOHd 
ATALS NOISSIN NI STVLYOd ADGIYA—VINHOAITVD “AGISHHATH—-AXXNTD GL Id 


[ 266 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


PLATE CLXXXVI—CINGINNATI, OHIO—FOOT BRIDGE AT EAST SIDE HIGH SCHOOL 
GARBER & WOODWARD, ARCHITECTS 


[ 267 | 


TURE 


ARCHITEC 


+ 
ol 


BRIDGI 


SHHANIDNA “NOSLVM “f YOATIM 8 NOVY YHLTIVA 
9c6l LIINA—YaAIY GVIN AHL YHAO ADCIYd LAAULS AVTIGNIA—OIHO ‘NOLAVG—IAXXX1) ALVId 


> em 


mw 


4 


268 | 


WN TA 


| 


a 


a ATC RTT TTT TTT rea 


i 


iit 


tHITECTURE 


ARC 


E 


> 
I 


BRIDC 


9261 YHOU NIDNA ALVOTHA IW “V—YuATY 


AMDOY HHAO HOGIHE GUVITIIH—OIHO ‘GNVTHAYT 


Y 
N 


J-MMNAXXXTO ALVId 


F269] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


A 


PLATE CLXXXIX—BAVARIA—DETAIL OF CONCRETE RAILWAY BRIDGE—M. BEUTEL, ENGINEER—1908 


PLATE CXC—BOSTON, MASS.—CONCRETE BRIDGE OVER CHARLES RIVER—DETAIL 


[ 270 


BRIDGH ARCHITECTURE 


TURE 


Cc" 


tHITE 


AR( 


BRIDGE 


ADCIYE DNEIMS ATANOG—ANVINYED ‘NAAVHSWNTHHTIM—HOX) ALV Id 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


v68I— LOALIHOYY ‘SHNOf HOVYUOH “YHANIONGA ‘AYUVE “M f—HOGIUE YAMOL AHL—NOGNOT—IIDXO ALVId 


«ttl 


AHL areN tie 


[ 273 ] 


ARCHITECTURE 


BRIDGE 


[ 274 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


YAUNIONA ONILINSNOD ‘THSHLGOW HdTVu “SHAANIONA ONINOISHO “OO DNIYWHANIONGA 
NUuOdsO AHL—Zl6I—Ya AIM AAWNOVN AHL YHAO ADC LAXULS AWHAHO— OHO ‘OdATOL—ADXD ALVTd 


| 


[ 275 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


Bs ae a iy es Se SE ics I 


=m: 


¥ AN bts SR PASC US 
; > N MEE MARITAL SBRE POR 
RLeNwe 
Aa riches SRIAL RRIOG 1 Cow 79 °6N 


+? OFF tk SHE NH . Z 
TRO Ose q KeN1 s 
we - 
eae PRET stb EW GtkcRe LINUKARTE BERT Dey ek a 
INGRARLE JINN & An: » 
: oe te ec ne ee eect saeecdheenseurenipesvantetvesoeesner unas Deaaneeeanasopeeenenties naa aot ‘ EA 
POE IM aC SRI ASR AN ND MAN tn Soe an Basi 9 . pea aN ae a a ae ei Ti as ie 


- PLATE CXCVI—WASHINGTON, D. C.—THE ARLINGTON MEMORIAL BRIDGE OVER THE POTOMAC—BASCULE SPAN 


COL. CG. 0. SHERRILL, CHIEF ENGINEER; JOHN L. NAGLE, DESIGNING ENGINEER; W. J. DOUGLAS, CONSULTING ENGINEER. 


McKIM, MEAD & WHITE, ARCHITECTS 
UNDER CONSTRUCTION (1927) 


[ 276 | 


Cae oe a hol. ae 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


HHL Ad 


LOALIHDYY DNILIOSNOD “‘LLANNAd “HA “ODVOIHO ‘SHOdTYd JO LNAWLY Vdd 
GaNDISHG—AAV NVOIHDIN NO YAATH ODVOIHD AHL YHAO ADCIYAMVYG—TII ‘ODVOIHO—IIAOXD ALVITd 


i 


] 


[277 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


LOALIHDYV DNILTASNOD “LLANNA “H “A “ODVOIHO AO ALIO AHL AO SHOCTYA JO LNANLYVdad 
AHL Ad GANDISAG YUAAIM ODVOIHD AHL YAAO ADGIYA LAAULS NOSIGVW LSHM—TI “ODVOIHO—IIIADXD ALVTd 


PEERERELEELES 


eee Se Se 


[ 278 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


LOU&LIHDYV ONLLIONSNOD ‘LLANNAG “H “A ‘OOVOTHD AO ALIO HHL AO SHOCTYA HO LNANLYVdad 
AHL AG GANDISHG ‘WHATH ODVOIHD AHL YUAAO ADGINA LHAYLS NITHNVYA—TI ‘OOVOIHD—XIOXO ALVId 


scenic: Sap, ee 


Fei gh * eel, 


[ 279 ] 


POSTWORD 


HAT will be the Bridge Architecture of 
the future? We have reviewed briefly 

the past history of the art and its present 
condition, and have seen that the principal 
factors controlling the development have 
been— 

First: The general state of development of 
the people. 

Second: The standards of technical and 
artistic skill. 

Third: The materials available. 

Fourth: The methods of transportation. 

Applying these factors to the immediate 
future, we may safely assume that the general 
material development of civilized peoples will 
not recede, and there are unmistakable evi- 
dences of a greater appreciation of things 
artistic and pleasing to the eye. The new 
demand will lead to higher standards of 
artistic taste, and especially as applied to 
the implements of production, trade and 
transportation, which in the past have 
required only technical skill. 


The materials available for bridges, which - 


in the past included successively timber, then 
stone masonry, then iron and steel and lastly 
the combination of concrete and steel, are 
now all available at one time and may all be 
employed in a single structure. To those engi- 
neers who have made a most careful study 
of all materials, it seems certain that stone 
masonry will continue to be the material par- 
excellence for the best and most monumental 


structures, when its properties will allow its 
use. It seems extremely doubtful that rein- 
forced concrete will displace exposed structural 
steel for many bridges, especially those of long 
span. Doubtless, our scientists will soon pro- 
duce for us a non-corrodible steel or steel 
alloy, which will reduce the present high 
maintenance cost of steel bridges and will 
probably tend toward a return to the light, 
airy forms which this material permits and 
which has a charm all its own. 

The newest material, reinforced concrete, 
has, as shown by the illustrations, been in use 
only about a quarter of a century, in which 
time it has largely displaced stone masonry 
and steel for bridges of moderate span and 
for long viaducts. This material possesses 
great possibilities for artistic treatment, but 
so far most of the work executed therein has 
followed and imitated the exterior forms of 
stone masonry or exposed steel instead of 
frankly expressing its own peculiar and useful 
nature. 

There is a tendency among engineers today 
toward extreme specialization, certain engi- 
neers specializing in reinforced concrete work, 
some in steel and others in other materials. 
While there may be some advantages in such 
specialization on the part of assistant design- 
ers, it stands to reason that the bridge en- 
gineer or architect, on whose judgment rests 
the decision as to the proper materials to use 
for a certain structure, must be a man 


[ 280 ] 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


thoroughly familiar with all materials and 
prejudiced in regard to none. Above the 
specialist must stand the architect-engineer 
of broad mind and broad training if good 
designs are to be obtained. 

Methods of transportation change from 
time to time, requiring great changes in the 
design of bridges. We see the narrow struc- 
tures of the Romans, designed for chariots 
and cavalry and infantry, the still narrower 
roadways of the Middle Ages, some of them 
too narrow for vehicles of any kind. Then, 
we see the revolution in bridge construction 
brought about by the invention of the steam 
railroad a hundred years ago, and now again 
we see transportation conditions entirely 
revolutionized by the development of the 
automobile, attended by a tremendous ex- 
pansion of improved highways, requiring 
numberless wide, permanent bridges. 

Indeed, many observers see a complete 
revolution in our social life as a result of the 
universal use of the automobile, a new era of 
decentralized homes and factories, depending 
upon good roads and good bridges for quick 
and safe transportation. 

The key to our newest civilization seems to 
be the improved highway; may it be made not 
only commodious and permanent, but beauti- 
ful as well—especially the bridges that carry 
it over streams and other obstructions, and 
constitute its most monumental features. 

That this result may be accomplished, may 


we not look forward to much closer coopera- 
tion than now exists between the engineers 
and the architects? 

In earlier days it was possible for one per- 
son to acquire the artistic training and scien- 
tific knowledge needed to perform the func- 
tions of both architect and engineer. This 
was accomplished by Sir Christofer Wren 
and by Jean Rodolphe Perronet. 

In their time the preparation required for 
these professions was comparatively simple, 
but modern conditions demand far more 
training and experience than can be expected 
from an individual. 

Collaboration between architects and engi- 
neers is, therefore, necessary, and should begin 
with the inception of the work. 

It is evident that when the general design 
of a bridge is left solely to an engineer whose 
training has been entirely along scientific 
lines, and then an architect is called in con- 
sultation, the latter must necessarily confine 
his work to decorative treatment. On the 
other hand, when the general design of a 
bridge is entirely in the hands of an architect 
who, perhaps, has had inadequate scientific 
experience, the engineer is limited to the 
thankless task of giving sufficient strength to 
the structure, the general conception of which 
violates the rules of scientific design. 

The best interests of bridge architecture 
can be served in the future through the close 
cooperation of architect and engineer. 


[ 281 ] 


APPENDIX “A” 


| BIBLIOGRAPHY 
OF PRINCIPAL WORKS ON BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


Gauthier—Treatise on Bridges—Paris 1728. 

Geo. Semple—A treatise on Building in Water—Dublin 1776. 
Thomas Pope—A treatise on Bridge Architecture—New York 1811. 
E. Gauthey—Traite’ de la Construction des Ponts—Paris 1816. 


Hann and Hosking—Theory, Practice and Architecture of ee 
London 1842. 


John Wels Biiiees si case 1843. 

Smiles—Lives of the Engineers—London 1861. 

Jeaffreson and Pole—The Life of Robert Stevenson—London 1864. 
KE. Degrand—Ponts en Maconnerie— Paris. 

M. Paul Séjourné—Grandes Voutes—Paris 1913. 

W. Shaw Sparrow—A Book of Bridges—London 1914. 


George C. Mehrtens—A Hundred Years of German Bridge Building 
—Berlin 1900. 


William Emerson and Georges Gromort—Old Bridges of France— 
1925. 


Encyclopedia Britannica—Eleventh edition—1911. 
The Builder—London. 

The Engineering News Record—New York. 
Engineering—London. 7 

The American Architeet—New York. 

The Architectural Record—New York. 

The Architectural Forum—New York. 


[ 282 ] 


ABUTMENT 


AGGREGATE 


AQUEDUCT 


ARCADE 


ARCH 


Arcu Ris 


Arcu RING 


ARTICULATED 


BALUSTRADE 


BaASCULE 


Basket HANDLED ARCH 


BATTLEMENT 


BEAM 


BENT 


CANTILEVER 


CARTOUCHE 


APPENDIX “B” 


GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL TERMS USED 


(Based upon Webster) 


(of a bridge) The support at either end of 
the entire bridge. 


(of concrete) The particles (of stone, gravel, 
etc.) which are united by the cement. 


A structure for conveying water over a river 
or hollow, more specifically called an aque- 
duct bridge. 


A series of arches with the columns or piers 
which support them. 


A structural member, usually curved and 
made up of separate wedge-shaped vous- 
soirs, with their joints at right angles to the 
curve. Scientifically, the arch is a means of 
spanning an opening by resolving vertical 
pressure into horizontal or diagonal thrust. 


Used to designate a free standing arch 
having a width much less than that of the 
bridge, usually in pairs, and supporting 
columns. 


The arch proper, used to designate the arch 
without the spandrels, fill or other elements, 
and applied to arches which are the full 
width of the bridge. 


Put together with joints, as a truss. 


A row of balusters (vertical supports) 
topped by a rail, serving as an open parapet. 


(bridge) A counterpoised or balanced draw- 
bridge, opening in a vertical plane. 


An arch formed in the shape of a 
basket handle, may be either three or five 
centered. 


A parapet consisting of alternate solid and 
open spaces, surmounting the walls of an- 
cient fortified buildings. 


A structural member, usually straight, sup- 
ported at each end. 


A frame put together on the ground and 
then raised to a vertical position. Also used 
to designate the vertical supports of steel 
bridges when assembled in place. 


A projecting member; in a bridge, either of 
the two beams or trusses projecting from 
piers towards each other, their far ends 
free, or connected with a joining member. 


A tablet for ornament, usually for receiving 
an inscription. 


CENTERING 


COPING 


CORBEL 


CORNE-DE-VACHE 


CORNICE 


CROWN 


CULVERT 


CUTWATER 


DENTIL 


ENTABLATURE 


EXTRADOS 


FASCES 


GABLE 


GIRDER 


GRILLAGE 


HEADER 


INTRADOS 


[ 283 ] 


The temporary substructure which supports 
the permanent construction. 


The highest or covering course of a wall, 
used in bridge work to designate the finish- 
ing course of the spandrel walls. 


A projection from the face of a wall, sup- 
porting a superincumbent weight. 


(cow’s horn) Used to describe the prac- 
tice of splaying out the ends of an arch by 
gradually increasing the span. 


The horizontal member which crowns a 
composition; may consist of several courses 
of masonry. 


(of an arch) The vertex, or top part of an 
arch or arched surface. 


A small opening or waterway under a high- 
way, railroad, etc. 


The sharpened end of a pier, built with an 
angle or edge to better resist the action of 
water, ice, etc. : 


A small rectangular block in a series pro- 
jecting like teeth, as under the corona of a 
cornice. 


The architecturally treated wall resting 
upon the capitals of the columns and sup- 
porting the pediment or roof plate. 


The exterior curve of an arch; the exterior 
surface of an arch ring. 


A bundle of rods, having among them an 
ax with the blade projecting, borne before 
Roman magistrates as a badge of authority. 


The vertical, triangular portion of the end 
of a building. 


An iron or steel beam of economical section, 
either made in a single piece or built up of 
plates, angle bars, etc. 


A framework of sleepers and cross beams of 
timber or steel, used in foundation work. 


A masonry unit laid with its greatest 
dimension at right angles to the face of the 
wall. 


The interior curve of an arch; the inner 
surfaces of the arch ring. 


KEYSTONE 


LINTEL 


MEDALLION 


PARAPET 


PEPERINO 


Pier 


PILASTER 


PILE 


PonTOOoN 


PorRTAL 


PYLON 


Quay 


QUOINS 


Glossary of Technical and Architectural Terms Used—Continued 


The voussoir at the center of the crown of 
an arch, which, being the last to be placed, 
is regarded as binding the whole together. 


A horizontal member spanning an opening, 
used to support superimposed loads. 


A shape resembling a large medal, as a 
circular, oval, or sometimes square tablet 
or panel bearing a figure or figures repre- 
sented in relief, a portrait or an ornament 
of such a form, as a sculptured decorative 
architectural member or feature. 


A low wall or similar barrier, as a railing, 
especially one to protect the edge of a 
platform, or a bridge, etc. 


A dark colored volcanic conglomerate, much 
used for buildings and bridges in Rome. 


A support for either end of a bridge span. 


An upright architectural member, rectan- 
gular in plan, structurally a pier but archi- 
tecturally treated as a column with base, 
shaft and capital. 


A large stake or pointed timber, driven in 
the earth, used to support piers and abut- 
ments and sometimes used as a direct 
support for superstructures. 


A flat bottomed boat, or any float, used in 
building bridges, the boats usually con- 
nected with beams. 


In bridge building, the space at either end, 
between the first two principal trusses in a 
truss bridge or a door, gate or entrance, 
especially one that is grand and imposing. 


A gate way building having a truncated 
pyramidal form. 


A solid artificial landing place, usually of 
masonry, at the side of a river, etc. 


The selected pieces of material by which - 


the corner is marked; in stone the quoins 
consist of blocks larger than those used in 
the rest of the building and cut to dimen- 
sion. 


Reurevine Arcues’ An arch used to relieve another mem- 


ber, as a lintel, of part of its load. 


RETICULATION 


RIseE 


SADDLES 


SCAFFOLDING 


SEGMENTAL 


SKEWBACK 


SPAN 


SPANDREL 


STRAIN 
STRESS 
STRETCHER 


TRESTLE 


Truss 


TuFA 


VoISsSOUR 


[ 284 ] 


Masonry work constructed, or faced, with 
diamond-shaped stones, or square stones 
placed diagonally. 


(of an arch) The vertical ascent of the 
intrados curve. 


Blocks over which the cables of a suspen- 
sion bridge pass, or to which they are 
anchored. 


A supporting framework for temporary 
supports, usually of timber. 


An arch of which the intrados forms the 
segment of a circle, meeting the jambs or 
imposts at an angle. 


The course of masonry, the stone, or the 
plate, having an inclined face against which 
the voussoirs of an arch abut. 


The spread or extent of an arch between 
abutments or of a beam, girder, truss, roof, 
bridge, or the like, between supports; also, 


the portion thus extended. 


The irregular triangular space between the 
extradox curve of an arch and the enclosing 
right angle; or the space between the extra- 
doses of two contiguous arches and a hori- 
zontal line above them. 


The deformation, or distortion, of a body 
due to stress or force. 


The force with which a body resists external 
forces. 


A masonry unit laid with its greatest 
dimension parallel with the wall. 


A braced framework of timber, piles or 
steelwork, for carrying a road, railroad, etc., 
over a depression. 


An assemblage of members such as beams, 
bars, rods and the like, so combined as to 
form a rigid framework; that is, one that 
cannot be deformed by the application of 
external force without deformation of one 
or more of its members. 


A porous rock formed as a deposit from 
springs or streams, as travertine. 


Any of the tapering or wedge-shaped pieces 
of which an arch is composed. 


APPENDIX ‘‘C” 


BIOGRAPHIES 


N the early history of modern bridge architec- 
| ture, three great British engineers have taken 
a prominent part. These men are John Rennie, 
Thomas Telford and Robert Stephenson. The first 
is best known as a bridge engineer, the second as 
a highway engineer and the third as a railroad en- 
gineer; but they all designed great monumental 
bridges which marked distinct advances in the 
development of the art. 


JOHN RENNIE 


John Rennie, the architect of three great London 
bridges, including the New London Bridge, and 
many other engineering structures, was born at 
Phantassie, Scotland, on June 7, 1761. His father 
was a small farmer, as his ancestors had been for 
generations. Young Rennie was well educated, 
completing his studies at the University of Edin- 
burgh in 1783, and immediately started upon his 
professional career, designing canals, docks and 
bridges, at which occupation he spent the rest of 
his life, allowing himself but little pleasure and 
having but limited interests outside of his own 
work. His death occurred in 1821 and he was 
buried in Westminster Abbey, near the tomb of 
Sir Christofer Wren. 


THOMAS TELFORD 


Thomas Telford, the designer of the Menai 
Straits Suspension Bridge, was also Scotch, having 
been born at Eskdale, Scotland, in 1757. His 
father was a shepherd and the son was brought up 
in poverty, learning the trade of a stone mason, at 
which he labored for many years, educating him- 
self by reading in his spare time. This self-educated 
man had a great love for poetry and music. Much 


of his verse is in print. While the greater part of 
Telford’s life was spent in building bridges and 
harbors, he is best known for the type of paved 
roads which he built and which are still known as 
Telford roads, the principle being that of the 
macadam road with selected sizes of stone for the 
various courses, large stone for the first course and 
progressively smaller for the upper courses. Telford 
was active in the formation of the Institute of Civil 
Engineers, was elected its first president in 1820 
and left it a legacy upon his death in 1834. This 
self-educated son of a Scotch shepherd, who be- 
came a gentleman of wide culture, the friend and 
loved companion of poets and writers, is buried in 
Westminster Abbey. 


ROBERT STEPHENSON 


Robert Stephenson was born in 1803, the only son 
of George Stephenson, famous as the inventor of 
the railroad locomotive. Robert was educated at 
private schools and at the University of Edin- 
burgh. While the father’s greatest achievements 
were in the development of the railroad engine, 
Robert’s principal work was in the construction 
of the great bridges required to carry the railroads 
over wide rivers. His best known work is the 
Britannia Bridge. He died in 1859 and was laid 
at rest in Westminster Abbey, near the tomb of 
Thomas Telford. 


JEAN RODOLPHE PERRONET 


Jean Rodolphe Perronet, the pioneer French 
bridge engineer, son of a Swiss soldier in the ser- 
vice of France, was born at Surennes, near Paris, 
October 8, 1708. At the age of six, Perronet was 


[ 285 | 


BRIDGE ARCHITECTURE 


taken to visit the Tuilleries. The young Prince 
Louis XV, for whom elaborate amusements had 
been arranged in the adjoining gardens, was at- 
tracted by Jean and invited him to join his games. 
This was the beginning of a friendship which made 
Perronet the recipient of many unusual personal 
favors and confidences. 

Perronet intended to enter the Genie Militaire, 
a military engineering school, but since only three 
candidates were admitted at a time, and these 
selected by promotion, he changed to the study of 
architecture. 

In 1725, M. Debeausire, a Parisian architect, 
employed Perronet as assistant in charge of high- 
way and sewer construction. In 1745, he was 
appointed administrator and inspector of roads 
and bridges for the district about Alencon. Two 
years later M. Trudaine Sr. founded a school of 
engineering in Paris, of which Perronet was made 
Inspector General and Director. About this time, 


M. Hupeau, Chief Engineer of Roads and Bridges 
of France, entrusted to Perronet many of his 
duties. Meanwhile Perronet’s reputation as an 
instructor in mathematics, physics and archi- 
tecture made his services valuable as a consulting 
civil engineer. The Nogent-sur-Seine, the Sainte- 
Maxence, the Concorde at Paris and the Nemours 
bridges, also the Bourgogne and Yvette canals are 
among his achievements. 

By order of the Council of State, Perronet was 
named Inspector General of the Salt Mines of 
France in 1757, which office he held until 1786. As 
an engineer, Perronet displayed unusual skill 
as a designer and administrator. His personal 
qualities of kindness, patriotism, amiability and 
arduous devotion to his profession won him the | 
esteem of the London Society of Arts. 

The last years of Perronet’s life were devoted to 
a compilation of lengthy memoirs. He died at the 
age of eighty-six, February 27, 1794. 


[ 286 ] 


GENERAL TEXT INDEX 


Note: The various bridges described are indexed by location. 
See list of illustrations for index to plates. 


; Page Page 

Akron, Ohio, High Bridge 204 Forth Bridge 187 
Alcantara, Spain, Roman Bridge 36 Garabit Viaduct 147 
Ancient Period 30 Gaston County, North Carolina, Concrete Bridge (Plate) 259 
Avignon, France, Pont St. Benezet ol Geneva, Switzerland, Coulouvrenier Bridge 112 
Ayr, Scotland, “The Twa Brigs” a7 Geneva, Switzerland, Pont Butin 207 
Barcelona, Spain, Medieval Bridge 56 Glossary of Terms 283 
Bascule Bridge 209 Hannibal Bridge over Vulturne, Italy 112 
Berea, Ohio, Stone Masonry Arches 114 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Concrete Bridge 204. 
Berne, Switzerland, Arch Bridge over the Aar 148 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Masonry Bridge 114 
Bhutan, Asia, Old Timber Cantilever Bridge 30 Hartford, Conn., Bridge over Connecticut River 114 
Bibliography 282 Haverhill, Massachusetts, Concrete Bridge (Plate) 241 
Biddeford, England, Medieval Bridge 08 Heidelberg, The Old Bridge 99 
Bonn, Germany, Arch Bridge over the Rhine 148 Herkimer, New York, Concrete Bridge (Plate) 253 
Boston, Massachusetts, Longfellow Bridge 149 Kew, England, Edward VII Bridge fitz 
“Brothers of the Bridge”’ 51 Key Bridge, Washington, District of Columbia 208 
Budapest, Hungary, Elizabeth Bridge Awe: Lavaur, France (Plate) 126 
_ Budapest, Hungary, Kettenbriicke GR London, England, New London Bridge 99 
Caesar’s Bridge over the Rhine 32. London, England, Old London Bridge 52 
Cahors, France, Medieval Bridge 52 London, England, Southwark Bridge 145 
California, Highway Commission Bridges 208 London, England, Tower Bridge (Plate) 273 
Cashmere, Asia, Timber Arch Bridge 30 London, England, Waterloo Bridge 98 
Castleton, New York, Bridge over Hudson River 188 London, England, Westminster Bridge 146 
Chatellerault, France 85 Luxemburg, Pont Adolphe 111 
Chatsworth, England, Park Bridge 83 Lynchburg, Virginia (Plate) 256 
Chester, Pennsylvania, Small Memorial Bridge (Plate) 261 Mayence, Germany 188 
Chicago, Illinois, Franklin Street Bridge 210 Menai Strait, Wales, Telford’s Bridge 171 
Chicago, Illinois, Michigan Avenue Bridge 210 Menai Strait, Wales, Britannia Bridge 107 
Chinese Bridges 30 Middle Ages 51 
Chung-King, China, Masonry Arch Bridge 30 Minneapolis, Minnesota, Cappelen Bridge 207 
Cincinnati, Ohio, Concrete and Brick Bridge (Plate) 255 Modern Era 107 
Cleveland, Ohio, Masonry Bridges over Parkway Lis Montauban, France, Medieval Bridge 52 
Cleveland, Ohio, Rocky River Bridge 201 Montclair, New Jersey, Small Park Bridge (Plate) 262 
Cleveland, Ohio, Concrete Railway Bridges 208 Newburyport, Massachusetts, Old Suspension Bridge 171 
Cleveland, Ohio, Steel Arch Bridges 149 New York, New York, Brooklyn Bridge ie 
Cleveland, Ohio, Hilliard Bridge (Plate) 269 New York, New York, Hell Gate Bridge 148 
Cleveland, Ohio, Steel Railway Bridge 188 New York, New York, High Bridge 114 
Coalbrookdale Iron Bridge 145 New York, New York, Manhattan Bridge 173 
Cologne, Germany, Railway Bridge 188 New York, New York, Queensboro Bridge 187 
Cologne, Germany, Steel Arch (Plate) 161 New York, New York, Washington Bridge 147 
Cologne, Germany, Suspension Bridge 174 New York, New York, Williamsburg Bridge 173 
Columbus, Ohio, King Ave., Third and Broad Street 202 Niagara Falls, New York, Steel Arch Bridge 148 
Constantine, Algeria, Arch Bridge 146 Niagara Falls, Ontario, Small Concrete Bridge (Plate) 254 
Constantinople, Turkey, Pontoon Bridge Oil Nimes, France, Pont du Gard 35 
Dayton, Ohio, Concrete Bridges 205 Opening Bridges 209 
Delaware Water Gap Bridge of D., L. & W. R. R. 205 Orense, Spain, Old Bridge over Minho 56 
Devil’s Bridges 55 Orleans, France, Railway Bridge 113 
Dolceacqua, Italy, Ancient Bridge 56 Orthez, France, Medieval Bridge 51 
Eads, J. B. 146 Paine, Tom 108 
Eighteenth Century 97 ~~ Palladio 34 
Elyria, Ohio, Masonry Arch Bridges 114 Paris, France, Panorama of Bridges 84 
Fairmont, W. Va., Bridge over Monongahela River 206 Paris, France, Pont Alexandre III Tit 
Florence, Italy, Ponte Vecchio 56 Paris, France, Pont au Change 110 
Florence, Italy, Ponte Della Trinita 82 Paris, France, Pont de l’Alma 110 


[ 287 ] 


GENERAL TEXT INDEX—Continued 


Page 
Paris, France, Pont de la Archeveche 109 
Paris, France, Pont de la Concorde 97 
Paris, France, Pont Neuf 83 
Paris, France, Pont Royal 83 
Paris, France, Pont St. Louis 83 
Pavia, Italy, Bridge over Ticino at 
Periods—Historical 21 
Perronet (see appendix for biography) 97 
Persian Bridges 52 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Delaware River Bridge 174 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Walnut Lane Bridge 201 
Piedmont, Calif., Small Concrete Bridge (Plate) 261 
Pile Bridges—Ancient 31 
Pisa, Italy, Ponte di Mezzo (Plate) 96 
Pisa, Italy, Ponte Solferino 112 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Seventh Avenue Bridge 174 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Sixteenth Street Bridge 149 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Fortieth Street Bridge 149 
Plauen, The Frederic August Bridge 111 
Pole, Prof. 108 
Pontoon Bridges | 
Prague, Karlsbriicke 56 
Pu’to’Shan, China, Masonry Arch Bridge 30 
Quebec, Canada, St. Lawrence River Bridge 188 
Renaissance Period 82 
Rennie (see appendix for biography) 97 
Richmond, Virginia, Mayo’s Bridge 204. 
Rimini, Italy, Ponte di Augusto 35 
Riverside, California, Small Concrete Bridge (Plate) 266 
Roebling, John A. 172 
Robinson, C. M., “Modern Civic Art” 84. 
Roman Period 34 
Rome, Ponte Cavour (Plate) 244 
Rome, Ponte Molle 35 
Rome, Ponte Quattro Capi 34 
Rome, Ponte Rotto 34 
Rome, Ponte St. Angelo 30 
Rome, Ponte Sisto 34 


Rome, Ponte Umberto 
Rome, Vittorio Emanuele II Bridge 


(Plate) 245 
(Plate) 143 


Ronda, Spain 

Riidesheim, Germany 

St. Chamas, France, Roman Bridge 

St. Louis, Missouri, Eads Bridge 

San Diego, California, Cabrillo Bridge 
Scarsdale, New York 

Segovia, Spain, Roman Aqueduct 
Séjourné 

Serchio, Italy, Devil’s Bridge 
Stephenson (see appendix for biography) 
Sublician Bridge, Rome 

Sze-Chuan, China, Suspension Bridge 
Thebes, Illinois, Bridge over the Mississippi 
Toledo, Ohio, Cherry Street Bridge 
Toledo, Spain, Puente de Alcantara 
Toledo, Spain, Puente de San Martin 
Trajans Bridge over the Danube 
Tunkhannock, Pa., D., L. & W. R.R. Bridge 
Types of Bridges 

Utah, Natural Bridges 

Venice, Italy, Ponte di Rialto 

Venice, Italy, Ponte di Sospire 

Verona, Italy, Ponte della Pietra 
Verona, Italy, Gastelvecchio 

Vorailberg, Austria, Masonry Arch 
Wales, Britannia Bridge 

Wales, Pont Y Pridd 

Washington, D. C., Anacostia Bridge 
Washington, D. C., Arlington Bridge 
Washington, D. C., Cabin John Arch 
Washington, D. C., Connecticut Ave. Bridge 
Washington, D. C., Key Bridge 
Washington, D. C., Q Street Bridge 
Whipple Truss Bridges 

Wilhelmshaven, Germany 

Willoughby, Ohio 

Wilmington, Delaware 

Worms, Germany 

Zaragossa, Spain, Puente de Piedra 
Zanesville, Ohio, Timber Bridge 


[ 288 ] 


Page 


(Plate) 
(Plate) 


(Plate) 


113 
148 
36 
146 
207 
207 
37 
113 
55 
107 
31 
28 
188 
202 
54 
54 
33 
205 
19 
22 
82 
82 
57 
57 
113 
107 
oo 
274 
276 
114 
201 
208 
206 
147 
272, 
203 
206 
149 
57 
115 


